As an ideological current, liberalism declared itself even in the pre-reform period. Both the Slavophiles and the Westernizers, in the classical form in which they took shape in the 1940s, were basically liberals. The time of the emergence of liberalism as a social movement is the 60s. Government reforms - the liberation of the peasantry and, especially, the creation of zemstvos, these meager "pieces" of the constitution - created a certain basis for the consolidation of supporters of the liberal worldview. The public activity of the central figure of Russian liberalism of the 19th century was connected with the Zemstvo. Boris Nikolayevich Chicherin (1828-1904) was the direct heir of the great Westerners T. Granovsky, K. D. Kavelin and others: they were his teachers at Moscow University. Lawyer, philosopher, historian, author of the fundamental works "Course of State Science" and "History of Political Doctrines" B. Chicherin formulated the theoretical foundations of Russian liberalism in its classical form. As a true liberal, he considered the freedom of the individual a necessary condition for civilizational development. But at the same time, it was about the assertion of “limited” freedom and its gradual deployment along such basic points as freedom of conscience, freedom from slavery, freedom of public opinion, freedom of speech, teaching, publicity of government actions, primarily the budget, publicity and openness of legal proceedings. The program of practical actions outlined by him back in the 50s consisted in the elimination of feudal remnants in the economy, the abolition of serfdom, non-interference of the state in the economic sphere, freedom, private enterprise, and the formation of private property.
B.N. Chicherin considered the state and the government to be the only force capable of implementing this program. The idea of the state as the main engine and creator of history was the core of his political worldview, which was formed under the enormous influence of G. Hegel. At the same time, the entire course of Russian history only confirms this general pattern. The specifics of Russia - the enormity of the state, the small population in vast territories, the uniformity of conditions, agricultural life, etc. - determined the especially important and great role of the state in the development of the nation. And the modernization of Russia, according to Chicherin, was to be carried out by autocracy, which would transform itself into a constitutional monarchy. To this end, the government had to rely not on reactionaries and not on radicals, but on supporters of moderate, cautious, gradual, but steady changes. It was a program of "protective", "conservative" liberalism for society or "liberal conservatism" for government.
At the same time, B. Chicherin was never an apologist for absolutism. He considered the ideal political system for Russia to be a constitutional monarchy and supported the autocracy only to the extent that it contributed to the implementation of reforms. Theoretically, he did not deny the inevitability of the revolution in certain exceptional circumstances, but he considered it one of the least effective ways of historical action and, of course, preferred the evolutionary path of social development. His political program today is qualified as a Russian version of the movement towards a state of law, taking into account the socio-political realities of Russia in the 19th century and the national-state traditions of Russian history. At the same time, in the 60-70s of the last century, the implementation of the Chicherin formula was by no means utopian. There is a significant overlap between his ideas and the reformist attitudes of the time of Alexander II. But the history of the 80s took a different path, and Chicherin's ideas remained a purely theoretical phenomenon. The idea of Russia's evolutionary development was uncompromisingly rejected at both political poles of society.
Chicherin's liberalism coincided with classical European in relation to socialist ideas and the socialist movement. This attitude can be characterized briefly - absolute, categorical negation. The very idea of social reforms, according to Chicherin, contradicted the freedom of the individual, and therefore was untenable. "Socialism forever oscillates between the most insane despotism and complete anarchy". “Representative government can only last as long as this party is weak and unable to firmly influence state administration”, “social democracy is the death of democracy”, socialism is a false democracy.
Despite the connection with the Zemstvo, B. Chicherin was a representative of academic, intellectual liberalism. At the same time, a somewhat different form was taking shape, which in the literature was called zemstvo liberalism. Its social basis was made up of those sections of the Russian democratic intelligentsia who were directly involved in the activities coordinated by the zemstvos in organizing public education, health care, etc. These were teachers, doctors, agronomists, and statisticians. Zemstvo significantly intensified in the late 70's - early 80's. The impetus for their activity was the government policy of curtailing the rights of zemstvos, even those limited ones that were originally given to them. Otherwise, in the fair opinion of the well-known pre-revolutionary researcher of the zemstvos Belokonsky, the zemstvo leaders could well concentrate on peaceful cultural work for many years. The government offensive against the zemstvos, especially during the period of counter-reforms, pushed the zemstvos to political activity. Chernigov, Poltava, Samara, Kharkov zemstvos entered into open confrontation with the St. Petersburg authorities, demanding the convocation of representatives of all estates - the Zemsky Sobor. For this speech, the leader of the Tver zemstvo, Ivan Petrunkevich, was expelled from Tver under police supervision, thereby earning the glory of a "zemstvo revolutionary."
By the end of the 1970s, the Zemstvo movement worked out the main requirements of its political program: political freedoms (freedom of speech, press and guarantees of the individual) and the convocation of the Constituent Assembly. To achieve these goals, in 1880, the "League of Opposition Elements" or "Zemsky Union" was created. It was the first liberal organization in Russia. In 1883, in Geneva, Mikhail Dragomanov, a professor at Kyiv University, published the journal Free Word as the official organ of the Zemsky Union. Both the organization and the journal arose on a secret basis, illegally, contrary to the fundamental principles of zemstvo liberalism. The latter always dissociated himself from radicalism. The existence of both the "Zemsky Union" and the "Free Word" was short-lived. The next stage of the Zemstvo movement began in the mid-1990s. Its culmination was the formation in January 1904 of the Union of Zemstvo-Constitutionalists and the holding of its congress in the fall of that year. At the congress, they demanded the introduction of political freedoms, the abolition of class, religious and other restrictions, the development of local self-government, the participation of the people's representation as a special elected institution in the exercise of legislative power, and in establishing a list of income and expenses and in monitoring the legality of the actions of the administration. The leaders of the direction were D. Shipov, N. Stakhovich, A. Guchkov and others. Zemsky liberalism was in some respects more mundane, more realistic and more grounded than "Academic". Supporters of the latter in the new conditions of the beginning of the 20th century, paying tribute to the merits of the Zemstvo, considered them politically insufficiently radical.
In the mid-1890s, a new generation of liberals arose and became active. And Russian liberalism itself, along with it, entered a new stage of its existence. M. Tugan-Baranovsky and P. Novgorodtsev, D. Shakhovsky and Prince. E. and S. Trubetskoy, M. Kovalevsky and P. Vinogradov, P. Milyukov and N. Berdyaev. The color of the domestic intelligentsia gravitated towards the liberal movement. But a particularly important role in the development of liberalism at this stage was played by Peter Berngardovich Struve (1870-1944). He came from a family of a prominent royal dignitary. Father was the governor of Perm and Astrakhan. He studied at St. Petersburg University and abroad: in Germany and Austria. Struve considered himself an economist, his master's (1913) and doctoral (1917) dissertations were devoted to the problem of price and value. From 1906 to 1917 he taught political economy at the St. Petersburg Institute of Technology. At the same time, he was also a lawyer, historian, philosopher, deep political thinker. He directed his boundless erudition and extraordinary intellectual abilities to the search for the historical path of his homeland - Russia. Struve was not simple and easy in interpersonal communication, but on the other hand he was amazingly consistent in defining his main life goal. He devoted all his hard and long life to the transformation of Russia into a free country. He was almost never a wealthy person, often lacking basic income. Literally a few days before his death, he was furious when he saw in his house a Russian émigré who went to serve the Nazis: “They (fascists - L.S.) are the enemies of all mankind ... They killed the most precious thing on light: freedom... I live like a beggar. I don't have anything and never have. I will die poor. I sacrificed everything for freedom."
For half a century of his active work, P. Struve experienced a significant ideological evolution. One of the most noticeable shifts occurred just at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. This was the final break with Marxism, which in the socialist press, and then in Soviet historiography, was invariably qualified as "renegacy." Meanwhile, this is far from the case. In an effort to understand the changing reality, P. Struve, not being a dogmatist, really evolved in matters of worldview, program and political tactics, but in essence he never betrayed himself. He never betrayed those key ideas that formed the basis of his worldview, which developed in his youth, even before his "Marxist" period. These were liberalism, statehood, "nationalism" and Westernism. Liberalism meant the recognition of individual freedom as the main human value that allows a person to fulfill himself. Struve saw the meaning of human life in self-improvement, a necessary condition for which is spiritual and political freedom.
The state is one of the main cultural achievements of world development. It is an organizer. In accordance with the Chicherin tradition, Struve saw the state as the guarantor of individual freedom. Therefore, the ideas of statehood and human freedom did not in the least contradict each other, but, on the contrary, organically complemented each other.
Struve's "nationalism" is identical to the concept of "patriotism" in the modern Russian lexicon. Struve loved the Russian people and Russia, his homeland, and was convinced of the enormous abilities and possibilities of the Russian nation. He saw precisely the historical task in removing the obstacle to their full development. Struve's national patriotism was combined with Westernism, so typical of practically the vast majority of domestic liberals. Their Westernism did not at all consist in the desire to blindly copy the state system or the way of life of the “advanced” European countries and America, “... the most valuable thing that was in the content of European culture cannot be “learned” so simply, but you need to acquire it yourself , educate in yourself ... ". “The only area where peoples really completely imitate each other is the area of science and technology; in all other respects, for better or worse, they are only adapting their own institutions to the new requirements that arise from time to time, if not constantly, in their own environment. They adapt them by modifying them. These changes are often caused by foreign models, but they only take root in the country when they do not directly contradict the whole heritage of the past, which is made up of the beliefs, mores, customs and institutions of a certain people. But at the same time, they believed that it was the Western countries that demonstrated the main path of development of human civilization, the path of progress. Russia can reveal its boundless potential opportunities only by embarking on this common human road.
Thus, in the ideological evolution of P. Struve, liberalism was primary, and Marxism was secondary; liberalism was a constant, while Marxism and socialism were variables. Political freedom in Russia was the main life goal; the working-class movement, whose ideology was Marxism and socialism, is the main social force capable of achieving it in Russia. In the 1990s, Struve, like many future liberals, was sincerely convinced of this. Russian Social Democracy was for them, first of all, a democracy. The retreat of the supporters of the liberal outlook from the Russian labor movement, sooner or later, was inevitable. Struve's personal evolution in this sense signaled the end of the "Marxist" period and the entry into a new, more adequate liberalism. In philosophy, this was the rejection of positivism and the transition to neo-Kantianism, which was reflected in the well-known collection Problems of Idealism. In the field of program and tactics -- the "new" liberalism.
The emergence of the "new" liberalism at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. was directly related to the significant activation of the entire liberal movement at that time. The refusal of the new Tsar Nicholas II to meet their demands prompted the liberals to publish their own illegal organ. It was published from 1902 to October 1905. Liberation magazine. Struve was its permanent editor and the author of many principled articles. By the autumn of 1903, in St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kyiv, Odessa and other cities, local circles of supporters of the "Liberation" were operating, which became the embryos of the first political liberal organization in Russia. The Union of Liberation was officially launched in the summer of 1903, when in Switzerland the supporters of the magazine decided to start forming an all-Russian organization. This meeting was attended by Dolgorukov, Prince. Shakhovskoy, I. Petrunkevich, S. Bulgakov, N. Berdyaev, S. Prokopovich, E. Kuskova. In January 1904, the 1st Congress of representatives of local organizations was held in St. Petersburg. It adopted the program and charter of the "Union of Liberation", elected the council of the organization headed by the patriarch of Zemstvo liberalism I. Petrunkevich. The second congress of the "Union", held in October 1904 in St. Petersburg, discussed the issue of holding a banquet campaign in November 1904 in connection with the 40th anniversary of the judicial reform. The Union of Liberation was the most radical liberal organization that emerged in the post-reform period. The radicalism of the "new" liberals was far from accidental, but deeply conscious.
Understanding the essence of the "new" liberalism is facilitated by the classification of the types of liberalism, which on the eve of the revolution was given by another of its prominent figures, Pavel Nikolaevich Milyukov (1859-1943). A professional historian, who in 1892 defended a brilliant thesis on the assessment of the reform activities of Peter I, he received a “pass” into politics precisely because of his scientific and teaching activities. For some "progressive" hints in lectures, he was fired from Moscow University, sent into exile and gained a reputation as a disgraced public figure. He became widely known after the release of the first edition of his famous Essays on the History of Russian Culture (1896), which was his author's concept of the history of the Russian state. As a result of careful and long-term development of such a political outlook and principles of political behavior, on the basis of which all the activities of the permanent leader of the Party of Constitutional Democrats, which P. Milyukov became from 1905, were built.
In particular, in the uncensored book “Russia and its crisis” published for the Western reader, the last line of which P. Milyukov wrote on the day of the assassination of Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich, i.e. February 4, 1905, he concluded that the role liberal movement in the development of political democracies in different Western countries was not the same. In mature, fully developed Anglo-Saxon democracies (USA, England), the main engine of progress was liberalism. In Germany, however, which Milyukov referred to as a country with a new and much less developed political life, liberalism was politically weak. Milyukov included Russia in the same group of countries, but he believed that the peculiarities of the alignment of social and political forces were even more pronounced here than in Germany. If for this country the concept of "liberalism" is outdated, then in Russia a moderate course of political life (in the terminology of Milyukov - one of two in Russia; the second - radical - L.S.) can only very conditionally be called this Western term. “Today in Russia (that is, in 1904—L.S.), wrote Miliukov, the meaning of the term “liberalism” is both expanded and surpassed. It includes much more radical groups for the simple reason that any more or less advanced thought in the press can cause persecution. The term "liberalism" in Russia has become obsolete not because its program has been implemented. The program of classical liberalism is only the first step to be taken. But political and individual freedom cannot be absolute values, as it was believed at the beginning of the era of freedom in France ... People who call themselves liberals in Russia adhere to much more advanced views.
Thus, the most important lesson drawn from the European and, above all, German political experience was that in order to maintain its position in the political life of Russia, liberalism here must be more radical than the classical theory of freedom. And it was not at all a call for betrayal of the good old liberalism of modern times. In Milyukov's concept there was an attempt to preserve the essence of liberalism by expanding its content and changing its form. At the same time, the cornerstone of classical liberalism—individual and political freedom—was by no means excluded from the program of Russian freethinkers. It was recognized as the first, necessary, but not sufficient for the existence of liberalism as a significant political trend in the complex historical realities of the early 20th century. German liberalism has not been able to modify itself in this way, and therefore has not been able to play a sufficiently prominent role in the political life of its country. During the period of active development of their political physiognomy, Russian liberals saw one of the main tasks in not repeating the sad fate of their German ideological brethren. The output of the leading ideologists of the pre-revolutionary period P.B. Struve and P.N. Milyukov was seen in the radicalization of programs and tactics. Discussed in the pages of Osvobozhdeniye and embodied in the so-called Paris Constitution, that is, the draft of the Fundamental State Laws of the Russian Empire, adopted by a group of members of the Union of Osvobozhdeniye in March 1905, the program included a number of fundamental positions of classical liberalism - the requirement human rights and popular representation. The enumeration of human rights performed, in the view of the ideologists of Russian liberalism, a function similar to the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen. At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, it was no longer customary to include such declarations in the programs of political parties. But the specifics of Russia - political arbitrariness - demanded to fix attention on this.
The need for political representation was already formulated in the first program article “From the Russian Constitutionalists”: “Unclassified popular representation, a permanent and annually convened supreme institution with the rights of supreme control, legislation and budget approval” . On the question of the form of government, the structure of popular representation, there was neither unanimity nor definite official formulations, although the majority of liberals, of course, were inclined to recognize the constitutional monarchy as the most consistent with the historical conditions for the development of the Russian people. Different points of view were also expressed regarding the internal structure of the legislature. According to Milyukov, Russia could learn from the experience of Bulgaria, with its unicameral people's assembly. The authors of the Paris constitution worked out in detail the mechanism for the functioning of a bicameral parliament, borrowing much from the American constitution.
The radicalism of the program demands manifested itself, first of all, in the idea of a classless popular representation, in universal suffrage, and in the recognition of "state socialism", i.e., an active social policy of the state in the interests of the broad masses of working people.
At that time, universal suffrage did not become the norm for the "advanced" political nations. According to liberals, in Russia there was no alternative to the “four-member system” (universal, equal, direct suffrage and secret ballot). They substantiated its necessity precisely by the specific conditions of the political development of their country. In an explanatory note to the Paris constitution, Struve wrote: “In the presence of a strong revolutionary tradition in the Russian intelligentsia, in the presence of well-organized socialist parties, in the presence of a long and deep cultural alienation of the masses from an educated society, any resolution of the question of popular representation, except for a universal vote , will be a fatal political mistake, followed by a heavy retribution.
Having developed a serious program for solving two of the most acute social issues in Russia - agrarian and labor, Russian free-thinkers thereby learned a lesson from the experience of their German counterparts in the idea. The content of the agrarian and labor program did not take definite shape during this period, but the very fact of the conviction that such demands are necessary in the program of the liberal party is very indicative.
The radicalism of the liberals of the early 20th century, namely the pre-revolutionary period, manifested itself especially clearly in their political behavior, in their attitude towards the revolution and the Russian socialist movement. There is no doubt that Russian liberals were evolutionists, rightly believing that any revolution is fraught with colossal historical costs. They were convinced of this, first of all, by the experience of the French Revolution, but they were too smart and observant to absolutize evolution as a way to solve social problems. Even B. Chicherin admitted, under certain historical conditions, the inevitability of a revolution. In the situation of the revolutionary crisis in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, the extremely short-sighted policy of the tsarist bureaucracy, only very narrow-minded "men in cases" could not recognize the need for radical changes. In the latest historiography, it is rightly stated that the Russian liberals recognized the political, but not the social revolution, although they tried to use it to the last and hoped for any chance to prevent it. "Civil peace and autocracy are incompatible in modern Russia"... "I consider active, revolutionary tactics in the current stage of Russian unrest the only reasonable one for Russian constitutionalists," wrote Struve. At the same time, he always stipulated that the revolution should not be understood narrowly, i.e. to reduce it to the use of physical violence: “Smart, truly statesman people do not fight the revolution at all. Or in other words: the only way to fight the revolution is to stand on its soil and, recognizing its goals, strive to change only its methods.
Finally, the most important distinguishing feature of the womb period of the liberal parties in Russia was an extremely loyal attitude towards the labor movement and socialist organizations. Socialism in Russia was seen as the largest and most significant political movement. “Socialism in Russia,” wrote P. Milyukov, “more than anywhere else, represents the interests of democracy as a whole. This makes its role more important than in countries with more and earlier developed democracies. The Russian working-class movement, according to Struve, has become the main democratic force since the 1990s and prepared the broad and all-round social movement that marked the beginning of the 20th century in Russia. This led to an extremely important tactical conclusion: a confrontation with such a large political force is dangerous and fraught with political death, which happened to the German liberals. Such are the lessons given to us by the entire modern history of the great neighboring country.
And this is the desire for a political alliance, first of all, with social democracy (“The most influential Russian revolutionary group” (social democracy) and its body (“Iskra”), headed by people who are seriously educated, with solid knowledge and remarkable talents”) , was not wishful thinking or theoretical reasoning. Attempts to create a coalition with the Social Democrats were made repeatedly. Great hopes were inspired by the positive experience from this point of view of cooperation between various social forces in the mid-1990s, which was called "legal Marxism". And something was done on the eve of the events of 1905. In 1904, in Paris, the liberals managed to convene a conference of opposition forces, unprecedented in Russian history, in which representatives of various liberal organizations, the Socialist-Revolutionaries, and national social democracies took part (the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks refused). It was a step towards the creation of a kind of popular front. The idea of uniting all opposition forces in the struggle against the autocracy was the cherished goal of the "Liberation" and Struve himself. Without overestimating the importance of the Prague Conference, it should nevertheless be recognized that something significant has been done in this direction. However, the political union could not be realized in full, mainly because of the intransigent position of the socialists. The liberals clearly overestimated the ability of the revolutionary parties to political compromises, to constructive democratic activity. "It is possible that a new type of workers' party will be formed in our country, intermediate between British workers' liberalism and German doctrinal Social Democracy."
Thus, the Russian liberals were intensively searching for the formula of the liberal party in a not quite typical European country of the early 20th century. In the process of this search, liberalism became less academic, more grounded than it was in the second half of the 19th century. They realized in time that both in Western countries and in Russia the time of classical liberalism had passed. The fundamental elements of the model of political democracy created by the liberals in Russia were radical (social) liberalism, oriented towards an active social policy of the state and loyal to workers' organizations. The core of Russian democracy was to be an alliance of "new" liberalism and socialist forces.
However, having moved away from the orthodox look, liberalism in Russia has become “new” in a more European, rather than Russian, manner. His ideas were more of a theoretical synthesis of the achievements of world liberal thought than a soil version. In his search for this period preceding the events of 1905-1907, the liberals stopped in the middle. On the one hand, they turned out to be too radical new in comparison with classical liberalism - in opposition to autocracy, in illusory hopes for the constructive potential of the socialist movement. And, apparently, they slipped through the first soil mark, to which some of the liberals returned after and under the influence of the revolutionary events of 1905-1907. On the other hand, their liberalism was not radical enough in terms of social programs. Moreover, the point here is not so much a lack of determination to implement: in the desire to combine elements of liberalism and socialism, they, perhaps, caught the world's progressive, anti-totalitarian trend. But they did not follow this path to the end, they did not understand the urgency and, especially, the priority of social problems in Russia.
Topic: Stages of study and periodization of Russian history
Type: Test | Size: 47.06K | Downloads: 25 | Added on 12/14/14 at 13:08 | Rating: 0 | More Examinations
Control theoretical question
Stages of study and periodization of Russian history.
Stages of studying Russian history. chronicle period. Nestor. The origin of historical science. V.N. Tatishchev. Norman theory and its criticism M.V. Lomonosov. The rise of history in the 19th century N.M. Karamzin, S.M. Solovyov, V.O. Klyuchevsky. Soviet historical science and its outstanding names. Periodization of the history of Russia.
Stages of studying Russian history.
Historiography is divided into several periods. The first one is pre-scientific. In this period, it is worth studying medieval philosophy, a person's perception of time, traditions, and the functions of history. It should be noted that during this period, which lasted until the beginning of the 18th century, the main forms of historical narrative were formed, such as chronicles - keeping records by year. It was this source that became the main one, it was he who was studied by the historiography of national history. When studying chronicles, it is necessary to pay attention to the principles by which they were written, the forms and style in which the works were kept. The principle of chronography is especially important, which allows you to compare events, refer them to certain dates, link them in the concept of "earlier" - "later". The second source in this period, which historiographers dealt with, is the lives of the saints. It is important to note here that the lives of the saints have stronger subjective overtones than chronicles - they turn into a kind of legends and stories. Another form of expression of historical consciousness that scientists are interested in is folklore. It is from him that you can learn about the ideas of the people about their heroes and enemies.
The second period of the historiography of the history of Russia begins in the eighteenth century and lasts until the beginning of the twentieth century. This time was qualitatively reflected in the development of history as a science and the study of the source base. This includes such changes as the secularization of science and the development of secular rather than ecclesiastical education. For the first time, translated sources imported from Europe are being processed, historical studies as such stand out on their own, and at the same time, auxiliary disciplines are being formed that help to study history. A qualitatively new stage in this period is the beginning of the publication of primary sources, which in many respects turned the attitude towards the history of their country, and first of all for the Russian intelligentsia. It is she, the intelligentsia, who initiates historical expeditions and research. The third stage is the development of historiography in the second third of the nineteenth century. Here such problems as the relations between the Russian state and Western countries are studied, the first concepts of the development of national history arise.
The fourth stage - the second half of the nineteenth - the beginning of the twentieth century. At this time, the methodological foundations of historiography are being formed. The historiography of Russian history feels both positivism, and materialism, and neo-Kantianism. The range of research is expanding, especially attention is paid to socio-economic problems in history. At the fourth stage, the question arises of the professional training of historical personnel.
The fifth stage is the Soviet historiography of national history, which is based on a class approach to the development of society, which, in turn, was reflected in the scientific approach.
chronicle period.
Chronicles were the most remarkable phenomenon of ancient Russian literature. The first weather records date back to the 9th century, they were extracted from later sources of the 16th century. They are very brief: notes in one or two lines.
As a phenomenon on a national scale, chronicle writing appeared in the 11th century. People of different ages became chroniclers, and not only monks. A very significant contribution to the restoration of the history of the annals was made by such researchers as A.A. Shakhmatov (1864-1920) and A.N. Nasonov (1898 - 1965). The first major historical work was the Code, completed in 997. Its compilers described the events of the 9th-10th centuries, ancient legends. It even includes epic court poetry that praised Olga, Svyatoslav and especially Vladimir Svyatoslavovich, in whose reign this Code was created.
Nestor, a monk of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery, who by 1113 completed his work The Tale of Bygone Years and compiled an extensive historical introduction to it, must be attributed to figures of a European scale. Nestor knew Russian, Bulgarian and Greek literature very well, being a very educated person. He used in his work the earlier Codes of 997, 1073 and 1093, and the events of the turn of the XI-XII centuries. covered as an eyewitness. This chronicle gave the most complete picture of early Russian history and was copied over 500 years. It must be borne in mind that the ancient Russian annals covered not only the history of Rus', but also the history of other peoples.
Secular people were also engaged in writing chronicles. For example, Grand Duke Vladimir Monomakh. It was in the composition of the chronicle that such beautiful works of his as “Instruction to Children” (c. 1099; subsequently supplemented, preserved in the list of 1377) have come down to us. In particular, in the "Instruction" Vladimir Monomakh holds the idea of the need to repulse external enemies. In total, there were 83 "paths" - campaigns in which he participated.
In the XII century. chronicles become very detailed, and since they are written by contemporaries, the class and political sympathies of the chroniclers are very clearly expressed in them. The social order of their patrons is traced. Among the largest chroniclers who wrote after Nestor, one can single out the Kyivian Peter Borislavich. The most mysterious author in the XII-XIII centuries. was Daniil the Sharpener. It is believed that he owns two works - "Word" and "Prayer".
The "hagiographic" literature is very interesting, since in it, in addition to describing the life of canonized persons, a true picture of life in monasteries was given. For example, cases of bribery for obtaining this or that church rank or place, etc., were described. Here one can single out the Kiev-Pechersk Patericon, which is a collection of stories about the monks of this monastery.
The world-famous work of ancient Russian literature was "The Tale of Igor's Campaign", the date of writing of which is attributed to 1185. This poem was imitated by contemporaries, it was quoted by Pskovites already at the beginning of the 14th century, and after the victory at Kulikovo Field (1380) in imitation of the "Word. ..” was written “Zadonshchina”. "The Word..." was created in connection with the campaign of the Seversk prince Igor against the Polovtsian Khan Konchak. Igor, overwhelmed by ambitious plans, did not unite with the Grand Duke Vsevolod the Big Nest and was defeated. The idea of unification on the eve of the Tatar-Mongol invasion runs through the entire work. And again, as in the epics, here we are talking about defense, and not about aggression and expansion.
From the second half of the XIV century. Moscow chronicle is becoming increasingly important. In 1392 and 1408 Moscow chronicles are being created, which are of an all-Russian character. And in the middle of the XV century. the Chronograph appears, representing, in fact, the first experience of writing world history by our ancestors, and in the Chronograph an attempt was made to show the place and role of Ancient Rus' in the world historical process.
Chronicle writing as the leading genre of historical literature existed in Russia until the end of the 17th and beginning of the 18th centuries. It could not but experience the influence of certain aspects of European social thought. In Russian annals of the XV - XVII centuries. increased attention to the human personality, the motives of people's activities, there are historical works that are not related to the form of presentation over the years. There are attempts to go beyond literary etiquette.
Nestor
The Monk Nestor the Chronicler was born in the 50s of the 11th century in Kyiv. As a young man he came to the Monk Theodosius and became a novice. The Monk Nestor was tonsured by the successor of the Monk Theodosius, hegumen Stefan. Under him, he was ordained a hierodeacon. His high spiritual life is evidenced by the fact that he, among other venerable fathers, participated in the exorcism of the demon from Nikita the hermit (later the Novgorod saint), deceived into Jewish sophistication.
The monk deeply appreciated true knowledge, combined with humility and repentance. “There is great benefit from the teaching of the book,” he said, “books punish and teach us the path to repentance, because from bookish words we gain wisdom and abstinence. These are rivers that water the universe, from which wisdom comes. sorrows, they are the bridle of abstinence. If you diligently seek wisdom in books, you will gain great benefit for your soul. For he who reads books converses with God or with holy men."
In the monastery, the Monk Nestor carried out the obedience of a chronicler. In the 1980s he wrote "Reading on the Life and Destruction of the Blessed Passion-Bearers Boris and Gleb" in connection with the transfer of their holy relics to Vyshgorod in 1072 (Comm. 2 May). In the 80s, the Monk Nestor compiled the life of the Monk Theodosius of the Caves, and in 1091, on the eve of the patronal feast of the Caves monastery, hegumen John instructed him to dig from the ground for transferring to the church the holy relics of the Monk Theodosius (commemorated the acquisition of August 14).
The main feat of the life of the Monk Nestor was the compilation of the "Tale of Bygone Years" by 1112-1113.
"Behold the tales of bygone years, where did the Russian land come from, who in Kyiv began first to reign, and where did the Russian land come from" - this is how the Monk Nestor defined the goal of his work from the first lines. An unusually wide range of sources (preceding Russian chronicles and legends, monastic records, Byzantine chronicles of John Malala and Georgy Amartol, various historical collections, stories of the elder boyar Jan Vyshatich, merchants, warriors, travelers), meaningful from a single, strictly ecclesiastical point of view, allowed St. Nestor to write the history of Rus' as an integral part of world history, the history of the salvation of the human race.
The monk-patriot sets out the history of the Russian Church in the main moments of its historical formation. He speaks of the first mention of the Russian people in church sources - in 866, under the holy Patriarch Photius of Constantinople; narrates about the creation of the Slavonic charter by the saints Equal-to-the-Apostles Cyril and Methodius, about the Baptism of Saint Equal-to-the-Apostles Olga in Constantinople.
The chronicle of St. Nestor has preserved for us the story of the first Orthodox church in Kyiv (under the year 945), about the confessional feat of the holy Varangian martyrs (under the year 983), about the "testing of the faith" by the holy Equal-to-the-Apostles Vladimir (986) and the Baptism of Rus' (988). We are indebted to the first Russian church historian for information about the first metropolitans of the Russian Church, about the emergence of the Pechersk monastery, about its founders and ascetics. The time of the Monk Nestor was not easy for the Russian land and the Russian Church. Rus' was tormented by princely civil strife, the steppe nomadic Polovtsy ravaged cities and villages with predatory raids, drove Russian people into slavery, burned churches and monasteries.
The Monk Nestor died about the year 1114, having bequeathed to the chronicler monks of the Caves the continuation of his great work. Hegumen Sylvester, who gave the Tale of Bygone Years a modern look, hegumen Moses Vydubitsky, who extended it until 1200, and finally, Abbot Lavrenty, who wrote in 1377 the oldest of the lists that have come down to us that have preserved the "Tale" of St. Nestor ( "Laurentian Chronicle").
Saint Nestor was buried in the Near Caves of Saint Anthony of the Caves. The Church also honors his memory together with the Cathedral of the Fathers Resting in the Near Caves on September 28 and on the 2nd Week of Great Lent, when the Council of all the Kiev-Pechersk Fathers is celebrated.
The origin of historical science.
History as a science began to be born in Russia, as well as in Europe, in the 18th century. But in Russia, it got back on its feet in more difficult conditions: in the country for a very long time, compared with Europe, there were no secular higher educational institutions that would train scientific personnel. In Europe, the first secular university appeared in the 12th century, and in Russia the Academy of Sciences opened only in 1725, the first university (Moscow) in 1755. The first Russian researchers had to face the virtual absence of a source base, which is the foundation of historical science . When Peter 1 issued a decree on the need to write the history of Russia and ordered the Synod to collect manuscripts by dioceses, only 40 of them were submitted, and of these, only 8 of a historical nature.
The first attempt to write a systematic review did not belong to academicians, and not even to a historian by education. Its author was V. N. Tatishchev (1686--1750), who was a civil servant and a well-educated person. It was the first systematic work on national history. In addition, Tatishchev created instructions for collecting geographical and archaeological information about Russia, adopted by the Academy of Sciences. At the same time, while evaluating Tatishchev's contribution to the formation of historical science, we note that he failed to comprehend the collected material, to connect it with a conceptual idea. His history of Russia was a collection of annalistic data. The lack of literary processing and heavy language made Tatishchev's work difficult to perceive even by his contemporaries.
Tatishchev V.N.
Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev (1686-1750) was not a professional historian. He did not receive an education in history, because such education did not yet exist in Russia. As V.O. Klyuchevsky wrote, "for himself he became a professor of history." Tatishchev was born into the family of a Pskov landowner. Among his relatives was Tsarina Praskovya, the wife of Ivan V. He graduated from the Engineering and Artillery School in Moscow. "The nestling of Petrov's nest", he was a participant in the Great Northern War, carried out a variety of orders from the emperor. He visited Germany and Sweden on his assignments, twice (1720-1722 and 1734-1737) managed state-owned factories in the Urals, founded Yekaterinburg there, actively participated in the palace struggle during the accession of Anna Ioannovna in 1730, was the governor of Astrakhan (1741-1745 ).
Tatishchev in 1719 received the task of Peter I to compile a geographical description of Russia. Since then, he began to collect materials on Russian history. He compiled the first encyclopedic dictionary - "Russian Lexicon", brought to the letter "k". Peru Tatishchev also owns the first scientific generalizing work on the history of our country - "Russian History from the Most Ancient Times." He began to write it in the 20s of the XVIII century. The presentation was brought up to 1577. Tatishchev stood on the positions of a rationalistic explanation of history. For the first time he made an attempt to reveal the regularities of the Russian historical process from the point of view of science. “Science is the main thing for a person to know himself,” Tatishchev wrote. He believed that knowledge, enlightenment determine the course of history.
Tatishchev was the first to propose a periodization of the history of Russia from the point of view of the development of the state: 1) "perfect autocracy" (862-1132); 2) "aristocracy, but disorderly" (1132-1462); 3) "restoration of autocracy" (since 1462).
Tatishchev's ideal was an absolute monarchy. He tried to explain the causes of events through the activities of prominent people. Tatishchev's work in many ways still resembles a chronicle, the material in it is arranged in accordance with the reigns of the princes. Until now, Tatishchev's attempts to critically treat sources remain valuable, many of which, subsequently lost, were preserved only in the presentation of the historian. The debate about their authenticity continues today.
Norman theory and its criticism by M.V. Lomonosov
Norman theory (Normanism) is a trend in historiography that develops the concept that the people-tribe of Rus comes from Scandinavia during the expansion period of the Vikings, who were called Normans in Western Europe.
Supporters of Normanism attribute the Normans (Varangians of Scandinavian origin) to the founders of the first states of the Eastern Slavs: Novgorod, and then Kievan Rus. In fact, this is following the historiographic concept of the Tale of Bygone Years (early 12th century), supplemented by the identification of the chronicle Varangians as Scandinavian-Normans. The main disputes flared up around the ethnicity of the Varangians, at times intensified by political ideologization.
The Norman theory became widely known in Russia in the first half of the 18th century thanks to the work of German historians in the Russian Academy of Sciences Gottlieb Siegfried Bayer (1694-1738), later Gerard Friedrich Miller, Strube de Pyrmont and August Ludwig Schlozer.
Against the Norman theory, seeing in it the thesis of the backwardness of the Slavs and their unpreparedness for the formation of a state, M.V. Lomonosov actively spoke out, proposing a different, non-Scandinavian identification of the Varangians. Lomonosov, in particular, claimed that Rurik was from the Polabian Slavs, who had dynastic ties with the princes of the Ilmen Slovenes (this was the reason for his invitation to reign). One of the first Russian historians of the middle of the 18th century, V.N. Tatishchev, having studied the “Varangian question”, did not come to a definite conclusion regarding the ethnicity of the Varangians called to Rus', but made an attempt to combine opposing views. In his opinion, based on the "Joachim Chronicle", the Varangian Rurik descended from the Norman prince ruling in Finland, and the daughter of the Slavic elder Gostomysl.
The heyday of history in the 19th century N.M. Karamzin, S.M. Soloviev, V.O. Klyuchevsky.
Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin (1766-1826) is rightfully recognized as the greatest Russian noble historian. The son of a landowner in the Simbirsk province, Karamzin studied at home, then in a private boarding school in Moscow, attended lectures at Moscow University. After traveling around Europe, he published the Moscow Journal (1791-1792), Vestnik Evropy (1802-1809), where he acted as a sentimentalist writer.
In 1801, he received an official order from Alexander 1 - to write the history of Russia and the position of a historiographer. A remarkable writer for the rest of his life "cut his hair in historians." Once in the public service, Karamzin gained access to state archives, repositories of annals and other sources on Russian history. Based on the works of his predecessors (V.N. Tatishchev, M.V. Lomonosov, M.M. Shcherbatov and others), N.M. Karamzin created a 12-volume "History of the Russian State". The presentation in it was brought up to 1612.
“The appearance of the History of the Russian State...,” wrote A.S. Pushkin, “made a lot of noise and made a strong impression... Secular people rushed to read the history of their fatherland. Ancient Russia, it seemed, was found by Karamzin, like America by Columbus For some time they didn't talk about anything else."
"History of the Russian State" was written for a wide range of readers. Karamzin assessed the actions and deeds of real historical figures from the standpoint of common sense, explaining them by the psychology and character of each character.
As a rule, the material in Karamzin's work is arranged according to princes and reigns. The periodization of Russian history was new. According to Karamzin, it was divided into the most ancient (from Rurik to Ivan III), a characteristic feature of which was the system of destinies. Middle (from Ivan 111 to Peter I) with autocracy and New (from Peter I to Alexander I), when civil customs changed dramatically.
This periodization is largely due to the concept of the historian. The main idea that pervades labor is the need for Russia to have a wise autocracy. “Russia was based on victories and unity of command, perished from discord, and was saved by a wise autocracy,” Karamzin wrote in his other work, Note on Ancient and New Russia. It should be noted that not every autocracy Karamzin considered a boon for Russia. The people, in his opinion, had the right to revolt against princes and kings who violated the principles of wise autocratic power. Karamzin condemned the tyranny of Ivan the Terrible, the activities of Anna Ioannovna, Paul I.
"History of the Russian State" became for many years a reference book on national history. Karamzin's work was written at the level of world historical knowledge of that era.
S.M. Soloviev
Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov (1820-1879) is rightfully recognized as the most outstanding Russian historian of the 19th century. He was formed as a researcher in an era when the question of the abolition of serfdom was being decided. At the same time, a controversy unfolded between Westerners and Slavophiles about the ways of Russia's development.
According to his convictions and views, S. M. Solovyov belonged to the number of Westerners. He was born in Moscow in the family of a priest. His whole life was connected with Moscow University, where he went from student to rector. Academician S. M. Solovyov was also the director of the Armory, chaired the Society of Russian History and Antiquities at Moscow University, was a history teacher of the future Emperor Alexander III.
According to his convictions, S. M. Solovyov was a moderate liberal. As a scientist, he was formed under the influence of Hegelian dialectics and the idea of "organic", i.e. objective and regular nature of the development of the historical process. He believed that the historian should "understand ... the gradual course of history, the succession of phenomena, the natural, legitimate emergence of some phenomena from others, subsequent from the previous ones."
The main work of the whole life of S.M. Solovyov is "History of Russia from ancient times" in 29 volumes.
Based on the ideas of Hegelian dialectics, S. M. Solovyov saw the reasons for the movement of Russian history in the interaction of three objectively existing factors. As such, he put forward the "nature of the country", "the nature of the tribe" and "the course of external events." Adhering to the comparative historical method, S. M. Soloviev saw the originality of the history of Russia and Western Europe, but not their opposite. In his opinion, nature for the West was a mother, for Russia - a stepmother. In the east of Europe there are no natural boundaries in the form of mountain ranges and sea coasts, there is little population, the threat of nomadic invasions is constantly felt, the climate is sharply continental. On the territory of Eastern Europe, there was a centuries-old struggle between "forests" and "steppes", the process of development (colonization) of new territories, the transition from tribal to state principles was underway.
According to S.M. Solov'sva, the state, "the highest incarnation of the people," played a huge role in the history of Russia. Objectively acting geographical and ethnic factors led to the emergence of a major power in Eastern Europe. "The vast plain predetermined the formation of this state," Solovyov wrote. The course of external events was thus dictated by real objective tasks.
The most important milestone in the history of Russia S.M.Solov'sv considered Peter's reforms. It was with Peter I that he began a new Russian history. The scientist showed the organic connection, vital necessity, regularity and continuity of Peter's transformations with the previous course of the country's development.
S. M. Solovyov, from the position of his time, created an expressive, integral and most complete picture of the history of Russia. Until now, "History of Russia since ancient times" retains its value as a generally recognized encyclopedia of Russian history.
V.O.Klyuchevsky
Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky (1841-1911) came from a family of a priest in the Penza province.
His whole life, like the life of S.M. Solovyov, was connected with Moscow University, from which he graduated in 1865. Klyuchevsky became Solovyov's successor in the department of Russian history. His brilliant, full of wit, bright in form and imagery lectures won him immense popularity.
By his convictions, Klyuchevsky was a moderate liberal. He did not accept revolutionary views and put science in the first place, "which abides forever and never falls."
Along with lectures, V.O. Klyuchevsky became famous and famous for his historical works, among which the result of his research and lecture activities is the “Course of Russian History”, which was very popular during the author’s lifetime and has not lost its significance even today. The presentation in it is brought to the peasant and zemstvo reforms of the 1860s.
According to his philosophical views, V.O. Klyuchsvskiy stood on the positions of positivism. Positivism (from the Latin positivus - "positive") sought to reveal the totality of specific knowledge, facts, internal and external factors, the combination of which determines the course of the historical process.
Klyuchevsky believed that world history develops within the framework of "the general laws of the structure of human society." At the same time, each country, each "local history" is characterized by features due to a combination of geographical, ethnic, economic, social, and political factors. Moreover, for each period of history, a combination of factors generates a certain amount of ideas. The change of these ideas and worldviews is the driving force of history. The starting point in the history of each country is the natural-geographical factor. V.O. Klyuchsvsky believed that the development (colonization) of the territory played a decisive role in the history of Russia.
V. O. Klyuchevsky created a new general concept of Russian history, dividing it into periods, each of which represented a certain stage in the life of the country. VIII - XIII centuries. V.O. Klyuchevsky characterized Dnieper, urban, commercial Rus as Rus'. XIII - the first half of the XV centuries. - as Rus' of the Upper Volga, specific princely, free-agricultural. Second half of the 15th - early 17th centuries - this is Rus' the Great, Moscow, tsarist-boyar, military-agricultural. The time after the turmoil and before the great reforms, V.O. Klyuchsvsky called the "new period of Russian history", the all-Russian, imperial-noble period of serfdom, agriculture and factory production.
VO Klyuchevsky and his colleagues gave a vivid and multifaceted picture of Russian history. Subsequently, they will be reproached for not understanding the patterns of Russia's development. And the last stage in the development of pre-revolutionary historiography (the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries) will be called the era of the crisis of bourgeois science, which failed to see in the history of the country the laws of its socialist transformation.
Soviet historical science and its outstanding names.
Soviet historiography
Soviet historical science, in the difficult conditions for the development of historiography in post-revolutionary Russia, as a whole, successfully performed its social functions. New historical materials were identified and collected, attempts were made to reread the past, and discussions were held. New archives, museums, scientific centers were created. Socio-economic problems and the movements of the masses were especially successfully studied.
However, the dominance in the theoretical sphere of only one concept significantly fettered the creativity of scientists. It was easier for those who dealt with the more ancient stages of the country's development. As far as Soviet history is concerned, assessments decreed from above could not but triumph here. Historical materialism has become the only philosophy of history.
The materialist understanding of history is based on the doctrine of socio-economic formations. The class struggle was recognized as the driving force of history.
Society in its development goes through a consistent, natural change of certain stages and phases, which are formed on the basis of a certain level of economic development. K.Marx and F.Engls called these stages socio-economic formations. A socio-economic formation is a historically defined type of society, representing a special stage in its development (primitive communal system, slaveholding, feudal, capitalist and communist). The economic basis of each formation is determined by the dominant mode of production of material goods. However, there are no absolutely pure formations. In each of them, along with the dominant mode of production relations, remnants of the old ones are preserved and the beginnings of new production relations arise. They are usually called structures. For example, under the dominance of feudal production relations, primitive communal and slave-owning relations (ways) are preserved, and at a certain stage a capitalist way of economy is born. Socio-economic formations make it possible to trace the progressive development of mankind from stage to stage as a whole.
Periodization of the history of Russia.
1. Old Russian state (IX-XIII centuries)
2. Specific Rus' (XII-XVI centuries)
Novgorod Republic (1136-1478)
Vladimir principality (1157-1389)
Principality of Lithuania and Russia (1236-1795)
Moscow principality (1263-1547)
3. Russian kingdom (1547-1721)
4. Russian Empire (1721-1917)
5. Russian Republic (1917)
6. RSFSR (1917-1922)
7. USSR (1922-1991)
8. Russian Federation (since 1991)
Control test tasks
1. Match the names of Russian historians with their main works:
1. V.N. Tatishchev A. Russian History
2. M.V. Lomonosov B. Ancient Russian history
3. N.M. Karamzin V. History of the Russian State
4. S.M. Solovyov G. History of Russia since ancient times
- The primacy in the collection and critical analysis of historical sources in Russia belongs to historians:
- V.N. Tatishchev.
- G.F. Miller.
- M.V. Lomonosov.
- N.M. Karamzin.
3. Match the historians and the era in which they lived:
1. V.N. Tatishchev A. The era of revolutionary upheavals
2. S.M. Solovyov B. The era of Peter the Great
3. M.V. Lomonosov V. The era of "palace coups"
4. M.N. Pokrovsky G. The era of bourgeois reforms
Control analytical task
Comment on the main idea of the text belonging to G. V. Plekhanov:
“When people begin to think about their own social system, you can say with confidence that this system has outlived its time and is preparing to give way to a new order, the true nature of which will again become clear to people only after it has played its historical role. The owl of Minerva will fly out again only at night.
The main idea of the text is that society will know all the advantages and disadvantages of the social system only when another system comes to replace it, and that it makes no sense to look for ideal legislation or a social system that will be applicable at all times and for all peoples. Everything has an expiration date. Everything changes and everything is good in its place in its time.
Literature
1. Vernadsky V. I. Proceedings on the history of science in Russia. M.: Nauka, 1988. 464 p.
2. Vladimirova O.V. History: a complete reference book / O.V. Vladimirova.- M.: AST: Astrel; Vladimir: VKT, 2012.-318
3. Ziborov V.K. Russian chronicle of the XI-XVIII centuries. - St. Petersburg: Faculty of Philology of St. Petersburg State University, 2002.
4. Kireeva R.A. The study of Patriotic historiography in pre-revolutionary Russia since the middle. 19th century to 1917. M., 1983
5. Merkulov V. I. Where are the Varangian guests from? - M., 2005. - S. 33-40. — 119 p.
6. Tikhomirov M. N. Russian chronicle. — M.: Nauka, 1979.
7. Yukht A. I. State activity of V. N. Tatishchev in the 20s-early 30s of the XVIII century / Ed. ed. doc. ist. Sciences A. A. Preobrazhensky .. - M .: Nauka, 1985. - 368 p.
Today, on television and in general on the Internet, many people say: “Here they are liberals, liberal-minded citizens ...” They also call modern liberals even worse: “liber @ hundred”, liberoids, etc. Why did these liberals not please everyone who hayet? What is liberalism? Now we will explain in simple words, and at the same time we will determine whether it is worth scolding modern liberals like that and for what.
History of liberalism
Liberalism is an ideology - a system of ideas about the structure of society and the state. The word itself comes from the word Libertas (lat.) - which means freedom. What does it have to do with freedom now find out.
So, imagine the harsh Middle Ages. You are a craftsman in a European medieval city: a tanner, or even a butcher. Your city is in the possession of a feudal lord: county, barony or duchy. And the city pays him rent every month for what is on his land. He wanted to, let's say the feudal lord introduce a new tax - for example, on air. And enter. And the townspeople will not go anywhere - they will pay.
Of course, there were cities that were redeemed for freedom and themselves already established more or less fair taxation. But those were extremely wealthy cities. And yours - such an average city - cannot afford such a luxury.
If your son wants to become a doctor or a priest, then it will simply be impossible. Because the state law determines the life of each estate. He can only do what you do - be a butcher. And when the tax burden ruins the city, then, probably, it will rise and overthrow the power of the feudal lord. But the royal troops, or the troops of the feudal lord, of a higher rank, will come and punish such a rebellious city.
By the end of the Middle Ages, this order of things bothered primarily the townspeople: artisans, merchants - in a word, those who really earn their hard work. And Europe was engulfed by bourgeois revolutions: when the bourgeoisie began to dictate its terms. In 1649, the revolution in England,. And what are the interests of the bourgeoisie?
Definition of liberalism
Liberalism is an ideology, the key elements of which are: the freedom of the individual, the idea of the public good, the guarantee of legal and political equality. This is what the bourgeoisie needs. Freedom: if a person wants to do business - let him do what he wants - this is his right. The main thing is that he does not harm other people and does not encroach on their freedom.
Equality is a very important idea. Of course, all people are not equal: in terms of their intelligence, perseverance, physical data. But! We are talking about equal opportunities: if a person wants to do something, no one has the right to interfere with him on the basis of racial, social or other other prejudices. Ideally, any person can break out into people, “rise” with hard work. Of course, not everyone will climb, because not everyone can and wants to work hard and hard for a long time!
Common good: means a rational structure of society. Where the state guarantees the rights and freedoms of the individual, protects this individual from all sorts of threats. The state also protects the rules of life in society: controls the observance of laws.
Another very important foundation of liberalism: idea of natural rights. This idea was developed by the English thinkers John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. It consists in the fact that three rights are inherent in a person from birth: the right to life, to private property and to the pursuit of happiness.
No one has the right to take a life from a person, except perhaps the state and only by law. The right to private property was analyzed in detail. The pursuit of happiness means the same freedom of action, of course within the law.
Classical liberalism died a long time in 1929, when a crisis arose in the United States, as a result of which tens of thousands of banks went bankrupt, millions of people died of starvation, and so on. Today we are talking about neoliberalism. That is, under the influence of various factors, liberalism has changed: it has transformed into neoliberalism.
What is neoliberalism, we analyze in detail in my exam preparation courses.
Why are liberals in Russia today so “bad” that everyone scolds them? The fact is that people who call themselves liberals defend not so much the ideology of liberalism as the idea that Europe and the USA are the best countries and that it is they who should be guided by: to enter the European Union, NATO, in a word, bend under the West. At the same time, if you say that you do not think it is right, they prove to you that you are not right at all. That is, they deliberately violate your right to the same freedom of speech, freedom of opinion, position.
Why do we need Europe if they have a crisis economy? After all, all crises begin in the West. Look at the countries that are members of the European Union: Greece, Romania. Romanians now go to Germany to clean German toilet bowls - they cannot work at their bus factories - they were closed due to the fact that Germany makes bus deliveries. And Greece - several years in the European Union brought this country to a financial collapse, not even a crisis - a collapse.
Looking at all this, you will involuntarily think, why do we need to be in the EU? To at least destroy us, what else somehow works somewhere? Therefore, if I would call modern Russian “liberals” (those people who advocate reckless European integration) liberals, then only through quotation marks.
In conclusion, I give a common joke. To the question: “Should I go down?” the patriot answers "Who?", and the liberal "Where?" 🙂
I hope you received an exhaustive answer to the question "What is liberalism", put likes, write in the comments about all this.
Sincerely, Andrey Puchkov
To date, there are several options for approaches to periodization in general and Russia in particular: civilizational, formational and world-systemic. Each of these approaches is distinguished not only by the criteria by which the historical process is conditionally segmented, but by the general semantic content, the way of understanding the historical process of human development. That is, criteria such as the type of thinking or means of production, socio-economic relations or religion can be used for periodization. The formational approach and the approach to the periodization of the history of Russia from the standpoint of liberalism have become most famous.
Formative approach
The main criterion for periodization in the formational approach is the assessment of the type of socio-economic relations in society. This principle makes it possible to formulate a fairly clear sequence of various stages in the development of society. At the same time, each stage has its own socio-economic formation. The formational approach was most widespread in Russia during the era of the USSR, since one of the authors of the approach was Marx and the meaning of the approach harmoniously fit into the ideological concept of the USSR.
Thus, at different times, supporters of the formational approach distinguished at least five or seven periods in the history of Russia according to the number of formations of the social system, that is, the primitive-communal period, slave-owning, feudal, capitalist and socialist. Today, adherents of the formational approach distinguish between the historical periods of Ancient Rus' (IX-XII centuries), Specific Rus' (XII century - first half of the 15th century), United (second half of the 15th century - first half of the 16th century), Russia from the second half XVI century until the first third of the eighteenth century. The next period is associated with the reign of Anna Ioannovna and lasts until the abolition of serfdom in 1861.
The three remaining periods are obvious: Russia from 1861 to 1917, Soviet Russia 1917–1991. and Russia since the 90s. Until now. However, critics of the formational approach note the artificiality of such periodization and the obvious artificiality of the temporal and territorial historical space of Russia. At the same time, it is noted that the slave system had no historical place in Russia, and capitalism as such lasted no more than half a century from the date of the abolition of serfdom in 1861 until the events of the October Revolution. It should be noted that the formational approach is developing and today a global relay-formational concept of world history has been formed. According to this concept, the "young" society does not go through all the formations sequentially, but can start from the stage where the predecessors in development stopped.
Approach to the history of Russia from the standpoint of liberalism
Recently, a liberal approach to the periodization of Russian history has become widespread. The criterion of the approach is the principle of the development of statehood (approximately from the 9th century), the evolution of public institutions, the organization of management in Rus', in Russia and the Soviet Union. Thus, five periods in the history of Russia are distinguished: the Old Russian state, the Muscovite state, the Russian Empire, Soviet Russia, and the Russian Federation. According to the authors of the concept, the division reflects the main stages of Russian history. Moreover, such a concept describes the most important feature of Russian history, namely the fact that for almost a thousand years Russia remained, in fact, an authoritarian state.
The periodization of the history of Russia contains such time periods of the development of the country that differ from each other by political, economic, social, cultural and other fundamental criteria.
initial periodization. Dozens of periodizations of the history of Russia are known. Let us take for example those proposed by the patriarchs of Russian history: N.M. Karamzin (main work "History of the Russian State"), S.M. Solovyov (the main work "History of Russia since ancient times), V.O. Klyuchevsky (main work "Course of Russian History").
N.M. Karamzin distinguishes three periods in the history of Russia (Table 1):
Table 1
As you can see, N.M. Karamzin laid down the concept: "The history of the people belongs to the tsar."
CM. Solovyov identified four periods in Russian history (Table 2):
table 2
|
Period |
Nominal or chronological framework | ||
|
From Rurik to Andrey Bogolyubsky |
period of tribal domination relations in political |
||
|
From Andrey Bogolyubsky until the beginning of the 17th century. |
Period of ancestral struggle and state principles, complete triumph state beginning |
||
|
a) from Andrei Bogolyubsky to Ivan Kalita |
The beginning of the struggle of tribal and public relations |
||
|
b) from Ivan Kalita to |
Time for the unification of Rus' around Moscow |
||
|
c) from Ivan III to the beginning |
The period of struggle for complete triumph of the state |
||
|
From the beginning of the XVII to the middle of the XVIII centuries. |
Entry period Russia into the system European states |
||
|
From the middle of the XVIII to the reforms of the 60s of the XIX centuries. |
New period of Russian |
Periodization S.M. Solovyov reflects, first of all, the history of statehood.
IN. Klyuchevsky also distinguished four periods in the history of Russia (Table 3):
Table 3
|
period |
Chronological framework | |
|
From the 7th to the 13th century |
Rus' Dnieper, urban, commercial |
|
|
From the thirteenth to the middle of the fifteenth century. |
Rus' Upper Volga, specific princely, free agricultural |
|
|
From the middle of the 15th century to the second decade of the 17th century. |
Great Rus', Moscow, royal boyar, military-agricultural |
|
|
From the beginning of the 17th to the middle of the 19th century. |
All-Russian period imperial nobility, serf period economy, agricultural and factory |
The basis of the periodization of the historical development of Russia V.O. Klyuchevsky put to a greater extent the economy of the uvestadial development, focusing considerable attention on the factor of colonization.
Meanwhile, we believe that the periodization of N.M. Karamzin, S.M. Solovieva, V.O. Klyuchevsky were acceptable for their time (the level of scientific development of historiography and source studies), today it is enough to know them, and not use them as the basis for teaching a university history course - too much time has passed since then.
The time of obvious active searches for the periodization of history was the end of the 19th and 20th centuries. At the same time, the first period of development of the Russian state has always caused the greatest controversy.
In textbooks of pre-revolutionary (D.I. Ilovaisky and others) and post-revolutionary (M.V. Nechkina and A.V. Fadeeva, B.A. Rybakov and others), including the latest (late 90s. XX century - A. N. Sakharova and V. I. Buganova, Sh. M. Munchaeva and V. M. Ustinova, etc.), it is easy to see that, for example, the concepts of Kievan Rus and Novgorod are used either sporadically or not. generally. It must be assumed that the textbooks reflect various conceptions of the origin of Rus'. There are many of them, but in modern conditions the most common are the Norman, Kyiv and the theory of the heterogeneous origin of the Russian and Ukrainian peoples (at the same time, we do not accept the "theories" of Fomenko, Koder, Kondyba and Zolin with their "exotic" concepts of the history of Rus', far from scientific justification and frankly Russophobic-falsified). In textbooks, the Norman, or "Kyiv" version of the origin of Rus' is most often considered.
According to the "Kyiv" concept, Kyiv and only Kyiv is the starting point of Russian statehood. At the same time, Novgorod is not given any role, Vladimir and Moscow are considered a continuation of the development of Kievan Rus.
The Norman theory to a certain extent confirms the Novgorod beginning of Rus', but at the same time, it seems to infringe on the pride of the Russians: after all, according to the annals, the Varangians began to reign in the Novgorod land - the brothers Rurik (in Novgorod), Sineus (in Beloozero) and Truvor (in Izborsk). one
And if these lands are considered the fundamental foundation of the Russian state, then such an assumption, as it were, strengthens the Norman theory. Proceeding from this, apparently, the emphasis was placed on the "Kievan Rus", as the only beginning of the Russian state.
I would like to give some considerations regarding the Norman roots of Russian statehood. Of the three princes mentioned in the annals (PVL), only Rurik, as proved, was a real person. As for Sineus and Truvor, their appearance on the historical stage, according to A.M. Kuznetsov, is nothing but a "curiosity of historiography". Academician B.A. Rybakov in his work “The Initial Ages of Russian History” writes: “Historians have long paid attention to the anecdotal nature of Rurik’s “brothers” ..., “brothers” turned out to be a Russian translation of Swedish words. It is said about Rurik that he came “from his birth” (“Sineuse” - “his relatives” - Sineus) and a faithful squad (“Truwar” - “faithful squad” - Truvor) ... In other words, a retelling of some the Scandinavian legend about the activities of Rurik (the author of the chronicle, a Novgorodian who did not know Swedish well, took the mention in oral care (presentation - I.P.) of the traditional environment of the king for the names of his brothers). The reliability of the legend as a whole ... is not great. 2
Regarding the beginning of Russian statehood, we will make the following assumption. Many detachments (teams) of the Varangians (Normans, Scandinavians) rushed (for various reasons, in our opinion, the main one was material and economic) to the West, South and East for robberies, seizure of land, with the aim of settling on them, etc. One of these detachments, led by the military leader Rurik, who was looking for land for robberies, ended up in Novgorod land, and for a short time captured Novgorod, becoming its ruler (according to another version, the Ilmen Slavs called him to reign along with the “brothers” Sineus and Truvor in Novgorod; the fact of inviting the Varangians to reign in the Russian land has not been established). Meanwhile, soon the Varangians were expelled from Novgorod. N.M. Karamzin writes: “Slavic boyars (led by an elder, Prince Gostomysl - I.P.), dissatisfied with the power of the conquerors, which destroyed their own ..., armed (Novgorodians - I.P.) against the Normans, and drove them out ... ". 3 Consequently, in Novgorod there was a princely power headed by Prince Gostomysl (the first half of the 9th century). Moreover, in the “Life of St. Stephen of Surozh”, who was for a long time an archbishop in the Byzantine colony in the Crimea in the city of Surozh (present-day Sudak) and died in 787, the Novgorod prince Bravlin is told: “The warlike and strong prince of Russian Novgorod ... Bravlin ... with a large army, he devastated places from Korsun to Kerch, approached Surozh with great force ... broke the iron gates, entered the city ... ". 4 And thus, "Life ..." testifies that Novgorod already existed in the 8th century. and Bravlin reigned in it. Since the reign of Bravlin (the second half of the 8th century) and Gostomysl (the first half of the 9th century) already implies statehood, we believe the beginning of Rus' as a state formation in the second half of the 8th century. (Novgorod), and not the end of the 9th century. (associated with the "calling" of the Varangians to reign in Kyiv.) It can be assumed that on this basis A.T. Stepanishchev considers Novgorod the first capital of the Old Russian state and therefore the "Norman theory" of the origin of the Russian state is untenable from his point of view. Taking into account the reasoning of A.T. Stepanishchev about Novgorod - the first capital of the Old Russian state - the periodization of the last two centuries of the first millennium and the first three centuries of the second millennium could have the following specific form - coinciding with the time of the transfer of the capital of the Russian lands: Novgorod period - up to 882 G.; Kyiv period - until 1157; Vladimir-Suzdal period - until 1326 ; Moscow period - after 1326 5
To a certain extent, one could agree with the reasoning of A. T. Stepanishchev. But still, I would like to clarify the position regarding the "first capital" and the beginning of Russian statehood. According to the research of Acad. B.A. Rybakov "... who in Kyiv began first of the princes ...", he refers to the VI century. (the reign of the Byzantine emperor Justinian (527-565), which is also dated by Byzantine coins). In all likelihood, it was at this time that several forest-steppe Slavic tribes merged into one large union. The union of the Middle Dnieper Slavic tribes was called Rus (primacy in the new union, one might think, originally belonged to the Rus, but Polyansky Kyiv becomes the capital). At the turn of the VIII-IX centuries. there is a development of the Dnieper union into a superunion, uniting several unions of Slavic tribes. Such an association was already a real state or was becoming one. This is another evidence of the failure of the "Norman theory" of the origin of the Russian state.
In our opinion, Novgorod statehood was already taking shape at the beginning of the 8th century, in the form of an early feudal republic, administratively divided into pyatins, headed by elected bodies of government - the posadnik, the thousand and the veche - which exercised direct democracy (people's rule) and survived until the end of the 15th century. - early 16th century Kyiv statehood began to take shape from the 9th century, in the form of an early feudal monarchy, administratively and territorially divided into volosts and destinies, with the Grand Duke and the feudal assembly of the nobility at the head. It can be assumed that two centers with different types (republic and monarchy) of Russian statehood were formed. The interaction of these two centers, as well as international interaction with other states (Novgorod with the Hanseatic League, the Scandinavian countries, etc.; Kyiv with Byzantium, Western European countries, etc.) - formed the Old Russian state (the specifics of Novgorod statehood remained until the 15th and even until the 18th centuries). 6
After 1917, the Norman theory became unacceptable for Soviet historiography and source studies for political, ideological and patriotic reasons. Therefore, along with the Norman theory, Novgorod was also pushed aside as part of it. At the same time, the concept of "Kievan Rus" was not particularly advertised, and the development of the theory and heterogeneity of the origin of Russia and Ukraine was held back.
Another topical moment in the development of the periodization of the history of Russia is the abolition of serfdom as the main milestone in the transition from feudalism to capitalism. Many authors argue that the Manifesto of February 19, 1861 gave practically nothing to Russia and the situation of the peasants worsened even more, etc., although they note this act as a turning point in the movement towards capitalism. There are also supporters of another concept, who propose to consider the bourgeois-democratic revolution of 1905-1907 as the beginning of the development of capitalism in Russia. and the subsequent Stolypin agrarian reform. In addition, parliamentarism as a sign of bourgeoisness was born precisely in these years. There is something to think about here, since Stolypin's agrarian reform also did little for Russia, it even provoked protests from the peasantry, which went as far as clashes with the police.
Along with the uncertainty of certain provisions of the periodization of the history of Russia until October 1917, there are difficulties in assessing the time from 1917 to 1991, etc. Based on the analysis of the concepts of many modern historians, it is possible to propose the use of the following periodization in the university course of Russian history (Table 4):
Table 4
|
Chronological framework | ||
|
From the turn of the 7th-9th centuries. until the 13th century |
Education and becoming Old Russian states |
|
|
From the 13th century until the middle of the fifteenth century. |
Specific fragmentation |
|
|
15th - 18th centuries |
Russian unification principalities into one centralized state, extension Russian lands |
|
|
18th - early 20th centuries |
Russian empire |
|
|
Late 10s - late 80s of XX century. |
Soviet state |
|
|
Since the beginning of the 90s. |
New Russia (provisional name) |
It should be noted that this periodization of the history of Russia is not indisputable, but it incorporates a variety of points of view of different authors and specialists. In educational and teaching work, one should also consider the re-odization given in the textbooks that students work on.
