Social movement at the turn of the 19th—20th centuries. Social movement at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries Main directions of development of Russian political thought

The historical development of Russia at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries is changing dramatically, moving towards the processes of industrialization and rationalism. The focus of interest is the works of K. Marx, based on the theory of exploitation. V. Lenin's theory is focused on the redistribution of values ​​and the abolition of exploitation. The history of the country takes on a tragic character, as it is full of ideological and class contradictions.

In this era, the reasons were created for the most terrible wars and cataclysms in the history of mankind, since the majority of the world's monopolists achieved such development of capital that they began to influence international politics.

At the turn of two centuries in Russia, a similar process was complicated by the fact that the formation of capital was late, the lands were developed and cultivated unevenly, the worker-peasant strata of the population had no rights, and the class difference was very significant.

In Russia, politics and society were undergoing very slow but sure changes. The country was dominated by the class system, the distribution of material wealth was extremely heterogeneous and uneven. The power of the nobility was shaken as large capitalists with significant capital began to come to power.

The majority of the country's population was the peasantry. However, under the influence of communal land ownership, which did not bring the same income, the majority of peasants chose to abandon their lands and go to work in the city. Only a few representatives of the peasantry became large landowners.

The peasantry occupied the most passive role in the political changes in Russia at the turn of the 19th – 20th centuries, since due to taxes and duties they were put in conditions of survival, had no education, and were tied to land plots that were processed without special technical devices.

The role of the petty and middle bourgeoisie was also small, since most of them were interested in demonstrating loyalty to the autocratic government, in addition, political reforms and transformations had little impact on them.

At the turn of the century, a constitutional democratic party was formed, the idea of ​​which was the creation of parliament, reform of the judicial system, land tenure reform, which was to be based on the abolition of the redemption payment, the abolition of irregular working hours for the labor element, and the introduction of labor protection standards regulated by criminal law.

At the border of the 19th and 20th centuries, there was a clash of interests of political parties. The monarchy in Russia during this period deserves special attention. Absolutism no longer met the political and social requirements of the country, since it was hopelessly outdated. Since significant changes were required in the country, great hopes were pinned on Nicholas II, who ascended the throne at the end of the 19th century. However, this ruler did not support the aspirations of public figures regarding limiting the power of the monarchy and the beginning of democratic rule. This fact formed a negative image of the ruler in the minds of thinking circles of society, which was reinforced by the role played by Russia in the First World War.

Negative public opinions were strengthened by such phenomena as the Khodynka tragedy, which happened on the eve of the coronation of the last tsar, Bloody Sunday, Rasputinism, and the tendency of the emperor’s wife to mysticism.

It is necessary to dwell in detail on such a phenomenon as zemstvos, as local government bodies were called. Local public figures tried to create real hospitals; their areas of attention included such problems as the fight against epidemics, the creation of pharmacies and maternity centers.

The interests of the big government and the zemstvos did not coincide, since it could not transfer all administrative functions to them, for fear of the liberal movement. It was from the zemstvo governing bodies that revolutionary activity began; on their basis, semi-legal and illegal political organizations were created.

In 1917, a revolution took place in Russia, which was marked not only by the redistribution of property, but also forever changed the social and political appearance of the country.

• Message Choosing a profession report

  Everyone will agree that work should be a labor of love that is interesting and exciting. The main thing is to treat work with love and spend your workplace in a pleasant team

Protective conservatism K.P. Pobedonostsev. K.P. Pobedonostsev. K.P. Pobedonostsev. K.P. Pobedonostsev. Chief Prosecutor of the Synod. -Criticism of the modern negative aspects of Western democracy (freedom of elections - the rise to power of the “loud and impudent”, censorship of the “money bag”). -Semi-literate Russia is not ready for parliamentary reforms. -Criticism of Russian bureaucracy, bribery. -Proposed mass education in a religious-Orthodox spirit.

Moderate Social Democrats. Akimov, Martynov, Kuskova. Akimov, Martynov, Kuskova. Akimov, Martynov, Kuskova. Akimov, Martynov, Kuskova. - Criticism of the existing system and capitalist modernization. -Supporters of socialist transformations, but believe that they are a matter of the distant future.

Radical Social Democrats. IN AND. Ulyanov - Lenin. IN AND. Ulyanov - Lenin. IN AND. Ulyanov - Lenin. IN AND. Ulyanov - Lenin. - Criticism of both the existing system and capitalist modernization. - The socialist revolution will occur in the near future, we need to prepare for it organizationally and ideologically.

Liberals. The middle strata of the urban intelligentsia. The middle strata of the urban intelligentsia. The middle strata of the urban intelligentsia. The middle strata of the urban intelligentsia. -The expansion of personal rights and freedoms, and civil society will lead to cooperation between the authorities and the intelligentsia and will bring Russia among the developed countries of Europe.

Silver Age. Traditions of the 19th century. Traditions of the 19th century. Traditions of the 19th century. Traditions of the 19th century. Search for new forms in art. Search for new forms in art. Search for new forms in art. Search for new forms in art. Interest in folk art. Interest in folk art. Spread of urban mass culture. Spread of urban mass culture.

Traditions of the 19th century “You may not be a poet, but you must be a citizen” “You may not be a poet, but you must be a citizen” “You may not be a poet, but you must be a citizen” “You may not be a poet, but you must be a citizen” » L. N. Tolstoy F. M. Dostoevsky N.A. Nekrasov

Non-traditional forms in art. Refusal of socio-political topics was perceived as an expression of oppositional political views. Refusal of socio-political topics was perceived as an expression of oppositional political views. A.A. Blok V. Meyerhold M. Vrubel

The science. Philosophy: Berdyaev, Bulgakov, Struve. Philosophy: Berdyaev, Bulgakov, Struve. History: Shakhmatov, Klyuchevsky, Platonov, Milyukov, Kareev, Oldenburg. History: Shakhmatov, Klyuchevsky, Platonov, Milyukov, Kareev, Oldenburg. Physics: Lebedev. Physics: Lebedev. Mathematics: Zhukovsky, Chaplygin, Steklov. Mathematics: Zhukovsky, Chaplygin, Steklov. Chemistry: Zelinsky, Kablukov. Chemistry: Zelinsky, Kablukov. Biology: Mechnikov. Biology: Mechnikov. Cosmonautics: Tsiolkovsky. Cosmonautics: Tsiolkovsky. Geography: Obruchev, Sedov, Kolchak. Geography: Obruchev, Sedov, Kolchak.

Key dates and events: 1898 - formation of the RSDLP; 1902 - formation of the Socialist Revolutionary Party; 1904 - formation of the liberal “Union of Liberation”.

Historical figures: V. I. Ulyanov (Lenin); Yu. O. Martov; V. M. Chernov.

Basic terms and concepts: political parties.

Response Plan: 1) the prerequisites for the activation of the social movement at the beginning of the twentieth century; 2) features of the social movement; 3) conservative movement; 4) liberal movement; 5) socialist movement; 6) the emergence of the first political parties.

Material for the answer: The main prerequisites for the radicalization of the social movement at the beginning of the twentieth century. there were serious remnants in the development of the country's political system: the concentration of absolute legislative and executive power in the hands of the tsar; high degree of bureaucratization of the system of power and management; lack of elements of representative democracy and all-class representative institutions; lack of legal political parties. The persistence and deepening of numerous contradictions in the socio-economic and political spheres contributed to the intensification of the social movement in all its manifestations: peasants advocated the return of plots and the abolition of redemption payments; workers - for the adoption of progressive labor legislation; students - for the return of university autonomy; national minorities - for the right to study in their native language, for the weakening of national oppression; liberal opposition: - for the involvement of its representatives in managing the affairs of society.

The most numerous and alarming for the authorities were the movements of workers who spoke out in the second half of the 90s. not only with economic, but also with political demands. These movements became noticeably more active during the economic crisis, when their financial situation worsened even further. May Day demonstrations and strikes took place in a number of cities in 1901 (a particularly violent clash between strikers and the police took place at the Obukhov plant in St. Petersburg). In 1902, a general strike took place at the enterprises of Rostov, in 1903 - at factories in the south of Russia. In 1902, protests by peasants in the Kharkov and Poltava provinces began a period of peasant uprisings that did not stop until 1917. (historian V.P. Danilov believes that 1902 marked the beginning of the peasant war in Russia).

Student protests and the zemstvo “banquet” campaign in the fall of 1904 complemented the picture of mass public protests against the foundations of the existing system.

A new phenomenon in the social life of this time was the creation of political organizations and parties that set the task of reorganizing Russian reality. In 1895, the “Union of Struggle for the Liberation of the Working Class” was created in St. Petersburg, whose activities were led by V. I. Ulyanov (Lenin). For the first time, this organization was engaged not only in the political education of workers (primarily in Sunday schools), but also called on them to strike. In 1898, the 1st Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party took place, proclaiming the creation of the country's first labor party based on the principles of Marxist ideology. At its 11th congress (1903), a program was adopted (providing, in particular, for the overthrow of the autocracy and the establishment of a democratic republic at the first stage of the revolution, the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the implementation of socialist transformations at the second) and the charter. At the same time, this organization split into radical (Bolsheviks) and moderate (Mensheviks) wings. The first of them was headed by V.I. Lenin for many years. Second - Yu. O. Martov.

A feature of the liberal movement of this period was the radicalization of the sentiments of its participants. Now they advocated the abolition of autocracy and the establishment of a constitutional system, the introduction of universal suffrage, etc. The creation of illegal organizations was not ruled out. However, such sentiments were characteristic of the “NEW” liberals who united around the magazine “Osvobozhdenie”, which in 1901 began to be published in Stuttgart by the famous theorist and active participant in the liberal-populist movement P. B. Struve. Soon the “HOBye”~ liberals created the “Union of Liberation”, which was the organizer of the “banquet)~ campaign in the fall of 1904. However, the liberals (who made up the majority of participants in the movement) continued to focus on cooperation with the government in carrying out reforms. They created the “Union of Zemstvo Constitutionalists”, which tried to use the legal possibilities of the zemstvos.

The second half of the 19th century occupies a special place in the development of natural science. This is a period that simultaneously represents the completion of the old, classical natural science and the emergence of a new, non-classical one. On the one hand, the great scientific achievement laid down by the genius of Newton - classical mechanics - receives at this time the opportunity to fully develop its potential capabilities. And, on the other hand, in the depths of classical natural science the prerequisites for a new scientific revolution are already maturing; Mechanistic (metaphysical) methodology turns out to be completely insufficient to explain complex objects that came to the attention of science in the second half of the 19th century. The leader of natural science is still physics.

1. Crisis in physics at the turn of the century

Second half of the 19th century. characterized by the rapid development of all previously established and the emergence of new branches of physics. However, the theory of heat and electrodynamics are developing especially rapidly. The theory of heat develops in two directions. Firstly, this is the development of thermodynamics, directly related to thermal engineering. Secondly, the development of the kinetic theory of gases and heat, which led to the emergence of a new branch of physics - statistical physics. As for electrodynamics, the most important events here were: the creation of the theory of the electromagnetic field and the emergence of a new branch of physics - the theory of electrons.

The greatest achievement of physics in the second half of the 19th century is the creation of the theory of the electromagnetic field. By the middle of the 19th century. In those branches of physics where electrical and magnetic phenomena were studied, rich empirical material was accumulated, and a number of important laws were formulated. Thus, the most important laws were discovered: Coulomb's law, Ampere's law, the law of electromagnetic induction, the laws of direct current, etc. The situation with theoretical concepts was more complicated. The theoretical schemes constructed by physicists were based on ideas about long-range action and the corpuscular nature of electricity. There was no complete theoretical unity in the views of physicists on electrical and magnetic phenomena. However, by the middle of the 19th century. The need for qualitative improvement of the theoretical basis of the teachings about electrical and magnetic processes became completely obvious. There are separate attempts to create a unified theory of electrical and magnetic phenomena. One of them was successful. It was Maxwell's theory that produced a genuine revolutionary revolution in physics.

Maxwell set himself the task of translating Faraday's ideas and views into a strict mathematical language, or, in other words, interpreting the known laws of electrical and magnetic phenomena from the point of view of Faraday's views. Being a brilliant theoretician and masterfully mastering the mathematical apparatus, J. C. Maxwell coped with this difficult task. The result of his work was the construction of a theory of the electromagnetic field, which was outlined in the work “Dynamic Theory of the Electromagnetic Field,” published in 1864.

This theory significantly changed ideas about the picture of electrical and magnetic phenomena. She united them into a single whole. The main provisions and conclusions of this theory are as follows.

· The electromagnetic field is real and exists regardless of whether there are conductors and magnetic poles that detect it or not. Maxwell defined this field as follows: “... the electromagnetic field is that part of space that contains and surrounds bodies that are in an electric or magnetic state” (Maxwell J. K. Selected works on the theory of the electromagnetic field. M. , 1952, p.253).

· A change in the electric field leads to the appearance of a magnetic field, and vice versa.

· The voltage vectors of the electric and magnetic fields are perpendicular. This explained why the electromagnetic wave is exclusively transverse.

· Electromagnetic field theory assumed that energy transfer occurs at a finite speed. And thus she justified proximity principle.

· The speed of transmission of electromagnetic oscillations is equal to the speed of light (c). From this it followed fundamental identity of electromagnetic and optical phenomena. It turned out that the differences between them are only in the frequency of oscillations of the electromagnetic field.

The experimental confirmation of Maxwell's theory in 1887 in the experiments of G. Hertz (1857-1894) made a great impression on physicists. And since that time, Maxwell's theory has been recognized by the overwhelming majority of scientists.

In the second half of the 19th century, attempts were made to give the concept of absolute space and absolute frame of reference new scientific content, clearing them of the metaphysical meaning that was given to them by Newton. In 1870, K. Neumann introduced the concept of an a-body, as a body in the Universe that is motionless and which can be considered the beginning of an absolute frame of reference. Some physicists proposed to take as an a-body a body that coincides with the center of gravity of all bodies in the entire Universe, believing that this center of gravity can be considered to be at absolute rest.

A set of questions about absolute space and absolute motion acquired a new meaning in connection with the development of electronic theory and the emergence of a hypothesis about the electromagnetic nature of matter. According to the electronic theory, there is an ether that is motionless everywhere and charges moving in it. The motionless ether fills all space and a reference system can be associated with it, which is inertial and, moreover, isolated from all inertial reference systems. Movement relative to the ether can be considered absolute. Thus, Newton's absolute space was replaced by the motionless ether, which can be considered as a kind of absolute and, moreover, inertial frame of reference.

However, this point of view already experienced fundamental difficulties from the very beginning. One can speak and imagine the absolute motion of a body, i.e., motion relative to the ether, but it is impossible to determine this motion. A number of experiments (Michelson and others) carried out with the aim of detecting such movement gave negative results. Thus, although the absolute frame of reference seemed to have been found, nevertheless, like Newton’s absolute space, it turned out to be unobservable. To explain the results obtained in these experiments, Lorentz was forced to introduce special hypotheses, from which it followed that, despite the existence of the ether, motion relative to it cannot be determined.

However, contrary to such opinions, considerations were increasingly expressed that the very concept of absolute rectilinear and uniform motion as movement relative to some absolute space is devoid of any scientific content. At the same time, the concept of an absolute reference system is also stripped of its content and a more general concept is introduced inertial reference system, not related to the concept of absolute space. As a result, the concept of an absolute coordinate system becomes meaningless. In other words, all systems associated with free bodies that are not under the influence of any other bodies are equal .

In 1886, L. Lange, conducting a historical analysis of the development of mechanics and asserting the vacuity of the concept of absolute space, proposed a definition of an inertial coordinate system: inertial systems are systems that move rectilinearly and uniformly with respect to each other. The transition from one inertial system to another is carried out in accordance with Galilean transformations.

For centuries, Galileo's transformations were taken for granted and did not need any justification. But time has shown that this is far from the case.

At the end of the 19th century. The German physicist and positivist E. Mach sharply criticized Newton's idea of ​​absolute space. The basis of Mach's ideas as a physicist was the conviction that “motion can be uniform relative to another movement. The question whether the movement itself is uniform does not make any sense.” (Mach E. Mechanics. Historical and critical essay on its development. St. Petersburg, 1909, p. 187 In this regard, Mach considered the systems of Ptolemy and Copernicus as equal, considering the latter more preferable because of its simplicity.) He transfers this idea not only to speed, but also acceleration. In Newtonian mechanics, acceleration (as opposed to speed) was considered as an absolute value. According to classical mechanics, in order to judge acceleration, the body itself experiencing acceleration is sufficient. In other words, acceleration is an absolute quantity and can be considered relative to absolute space, and not relative to other bodies. (Newton argued this point with the example of a rotating bucket filled with water. This experiment showed that the relative movement of water in relation to the bucket does not cause centrifugal forces and we can talk about its rotation by itself, regardless of other bodies, i.e. only the relation to absolute space remains.) This conclusion was disputed by Mach.

From Mach's point of view, any movement relative to space has no meaning. According to Mach, we can talk about motion only in relation to bodies. Therefore, all quantities that determine the state of motion are relative. This means that acceleration is also a purely relative quantity. Moreover, experience can never provide information about absolute space. He accused Newton of deviating from the principle that only those quantities that can be directly derived from experience should be introduced into theory.

However, despite the idealistic approach to the problem of the relativity of motion, there were some interesting ideas in Mach's considerations that contributed to the emergence of the general theory of relativity. We are talking about the so-called. “Mach principle”. Mach put forward the idea that inertial forces should be considered as the action of the total mass of the Universe. This principle subsequently had a significant influence on A. Einstein. The rational grain of the “Mach principle” was that the properties of space-time are determined by gravitating matter. But Mach did not know in what specific form this conditioning was expressed.

At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, the driving forces of the civilizational process gradually became revolutionism, nationalism, and industrialism, the manifestation of which in Russia had some peculiarities. The very content of the concept of “civilization” is also changing. Thus, during the Enlightenment in Europe, civilization was associated with the improvement of morals, laws, science, art, and philosophy. Historians of the restoration period in France, German scientists and their contemporaries in the 19th century used this concept relatively widely and published a whole series of works on the history of civilization in the countries of Europe and America. K. Marx connected civilization with commodity production, with the exploitation of man by man. Domestic Westerners (T. Granovsky, P. Chaadaev and others) identified civilization in general with Western civilization, while simultaneously recognizing the unity of the historical process. Lenin believed that true civilization arises with the destruction of the exploiting classes.

Modern Western social science defines civilization as a state of human society characterized by a high level of cultural and technological achievements and a corresponding set of social and political developments. Civilization, according to Western scientists, is associated primarily with the city, state, and citizenship. Therefore, it is most obvious that civilization in the form that caused its sharp rejection by many Western thinkers from Rousseau to Spengler is manifested in urbanization, in the spread of industrial production and technologies based on mechanical technical complexes. It was mechanical, industrial technology and the changes in society associated with it (such as the formation of mechanical discipline among workers, a predisposition to a mechanical worldview in the mass consciousness, the widespread dissemination of strict mercantile rationalism in it, focused on the consumption, first of all, of material goods) that allowed Spengler link civilization with the decline, “decline,” death and degradation of Western European societies.

Revolutionism characterizes the development of the state and society along the path of civilization through social revolutions. At the same time, a social revolution is understood as a radical, qualitative, profound revolution in the development of society, all its spheres, a way of replacing one socio-economic and socio-cultural system with another, higher and more progressive one. An integral part of the social revolution is the political revolution, which is expressed in the replacement of the political power of some, old socio-political forces, with the power of new forces.

As for nationalism, we are traditionally talking about politics and practice, ideology and psychology in the national question, based on the recognition of nations and ethnic groups and their relationships as the most important factor in social development and the priority, privileged place, role and interests of a given people in the socio-political, economic and cultural life of all humanity to the detriment of the interests and demands of other peoples.

In relation to industrialism, a movement towards an industrial society is envisioned. Industrial society is a stage (stage) of the historical development of society, which is characterized by a fairly high level of industrial production, its mechanization and automation, developed division of labor and its specialization, the use of the achievements of the scientific and technological revolution, dynamism, flexibility and openness in the organization of socio-political life .

Being the main forces of the civilizational process in Western countries, revolutionism, nationalism and industrialism, at the same time, starting from the end of the 19th century and subsequently, led to the internationalization of the lives of various peoples, their rapprochement based on the achievements of science and technology, and the spread of education. The so-called intercivilizational dialogue is developing.

At the same time, it was the world wars of the 20th century that brought world civilization to the brink of destruction and became a difficult test for humanity and its humanistic values, developed throughout the entire previous history of society. These wars undoubtedly reflected the fundamental changes brought about by revolutionism, nationalism and industrialism, one of the terrible consequences of the process of development of civilization as a whole.

At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, capitalism entered a new (monopoly) stage of development. Powerful production and financial associations (industrial monopolies and financial unions) were formed in Western countries. The merging of industrial and financial capital gradually took place. The industrial and financial groups he formed took a dominant position in the economies of Western countries. And it was precisely their interests that the domestic and foreign policies of developed capitalist states were increasingly subordinated to.

The process of formation of monopoly capitalism was also typical for Russia. It directly and indirectly affected her socio-economic and political life. A feature of this process in Russia was that national monopoly capital was formed here under the influence of the following factors: first, historical - Russia switched to capitalism later than many European countries; secondly, economic-geographical - a vast territory with different natural conditions and its uneven development; thirdly, socio-political - the preservation of autocracy, landownership, class inequality, political lack of rights of the broad masses, national oppression. The different levels of economic and sociocultural status of the numerous peoples of the empire also predetermined the uniqueness of Russian monopoly capitalism.

Another feature of the formation of domestic monopoly capitalism was the specificity of changes in the social and political system of Russian society. By the beginning of the twentieth century, the territory of the Russian Empire exceeded 22 million square kilometers. Socially, the country's population was heterogeneous. The relatively small nobility largely determined the political life of the country, occupying key positions in central and local government. However, under the influence of the development of capitalism in Russia, this layer became increasingly bourgeois and made political contact with the bourgeoisie. About 80% of the country's population were peasants. Under the influence of capitalist social relations, the social stratification of peasants accelerated: no more than 20 percent became the rural bourgeoisie (the so-called kulaks) and wealthy; the majority led a semi-patriarchal economy and served as a source of hired force for the village and city. The agrarian issue uniting all peasants was the agrarian one. The national bourgeoisie, which gradually gained in numbers and social weight, nevertheless remained politically passive. Its role in the state system of autocratic-landlord Russia was determined by the fact that the big bourgeoisie supported the autocracy, while the middle and small bourgeoisie put forward projects for moderate reforms. The domestic working class, formed by people from the poorest strata of the population (by 1913 - about 20% of the country's population), experienced the most severe forms of exploitation, which Western Europe tried to abandon. In fact, until 1906, no one defended the socio-economic and political interests of the workers. Subsequently, as the influence of trade unions and political parties spread to the proletariat, this layer began to occupy an increasingly important place in the political life of the country.

In the social structure of Russian society, a special role belonged to the numerous bureaucrats. It was precisely because of the presence of a large layer of bureaucrats in Russia that not so much monopoly as state-monopoly capitalism was formed. This was expressed in legislative regulation, the government's protective policy in creating monopolies, financial support by the State Bank for the largest industrial enterprises, and the placement of government orders there. Individual government officials were part of the management apparatus of powerful industrial and financial groups. The state-monopoly tendency was most clearly visible in the merging of banking monopolies with state financial institutions. All of Russia's largest banks were led by former senior government officials involved in the financial, trade, and military departments. The uniqueness of Russia lay in the fact that the autocratic state, in its domestic and foreign policy, began to protect the interests of landowners and representatives of the large monopoly bourgeoisie*.

The clergy was another privileged class in Russia. It ideologically served the autocracy and vigilantly monitored the moral state of Russian society. In the context of modernization of the country, there was a quantitative increase in the domestic intelligentsia. This social stratum was formed at the expense of representatives of other strata, who, as a rule, did not have a clear expressed economic and political interests. In general, the intelligentsia in Russia is a specific social and cultural phenomenon of Russian life, more or less crystallized during the reforms of Alexander II.

The term “intelligentsia” was introduced into circulation in the 60s of the 19th century by the writer P. Boborykin. The intelligentsia tried to comprehend their own tasks, connecting them with Russia’s place in the history of world culture and civilization, which led to the emergence of a variety of ideological currents and trends, which did not exist without conflict in a single sociocultural space. One of the first broad ideological conflicts in this regard was the dispute between Slavophiles and Westerners that began in the 40s of the 19th century. It became clear evidence of ideological contradictions in the worldview of the Russian intelligentsia, reflecting its somewhat marginal place in the life of society and the state. If a Western intellectual is predominantly a professional who has found himself in the structure of his society and internally shares its traditions, then a Russian one is, as a rule, a person who has found himself in the sphere of a certain ideal, but, despite his relatively high professional qualifications (and often, precisely thanks to this), psychologically unbalanced, acutely feeling alien to “practical life”.

Domestic journalism and fiction convincingly reveal all the contradictory views of life of the Russian intelligentsia, where projects for a radical reorganization of the world are often combined with elementary ignorance of the practical side of the matter. Along with the desire for the victory of the spirit over the world, a reasonable ideal over hateful reality, in the soul of a typical intellectual in Russia at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries there was a feeling of isolation from truly popular life, guilt before the idealized “suffering people” and the resulting desire to merge with it , imbued with his spirit, giving him all your knowledge and strength. In this social and individual psychological “field” revolutionary “walks among the people” were born, as well as, undoubtedly, professional and moral exploits in the spheres of education, science, health care, and technical creativity, which brought glory to national culture.

By enthusiastically pushing forward the development of healthcare, technology, science, law, art, and culture in general, most of the Russian intelligentsia have become the personification of selfless and largely selfless service to the common good. At the same time, among some intellectual ideologists, the pathos of sacrificial service to society turned into outright oblivion of the intrinsic value of individual freedom and creativity. The desire for accelerated the transformation of social life in a collision with reality led to ideological utopianism, political radicalism and extremism. In search of the theoretical and methodological foundations for a decisive renewal of social life, radicals and extremists seized on one or another Western ideology (in particular, Marxism), mechanically transferring it to Russian soil and turning it into a symbol of revolutionary faith. Practical means were chosen appropriately, including terror. This is how various kinds of revolutionary and near-revolutionary circles were formed, with their dogmatism and heightened intolerance towards any dissent, their readiness to justify any criminal means by the nobility of the intended goal.

It should be noted that the majority of the Russian intelligentsia during this period was far from revolutionary activity. Many representatives of the intellectual elite of Russia took the position of the so-called “pochvennichestvo” or liberalism, with its program of gradual democratization and Europeanization of the country. Therefore, it is difficult to agree with the veiled identification of the revolutionary Russian intelligentsia with the intelligentsia in general, which is often found in literature. Another thing is that revolutionary activity was perceived by wide circles of the intelligentsia in Russia at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries as one of the forms of serving the common good, and violence as a historically inevitable payment for weakening and reducing the positions of autocracy to zero. Many domestic intellectuals sympathized with the revolution that was ripening in the depths of Russian society and perceived it in a halo of romance, as a cleansing storm that alone could destroy the inert foundations of the country’s social life.

It can be argued that the role of the Russian intelligentsia in the development of national culture is exceptionally great, but on it there also lies the burden of historical errors, when a frivolous passion for revolutionary illusions and her inflated role as a “people’s defender” prevented her from adequately assessing the real consequences of the circle’s dogmatism, social utopianism and neglect of the individual in the name of the “common good.” In 1909, a group of famous publicists and philosophers (N. Berdyaev, S. Bulgakov, M. Gershenzon, P. Struve, S. Frank, etc.) dedicated the famous collection "Vekhi" ("Collection of articles on the Russian intelligentsia") to these pressing issues. . However, the warning of “Vekhi” was not heeded, which later turned into tragic events in the life of the people, society and state.

This, in general, was the social structure of Russian society during the period when monopoly capitalism was being formed in the country. Finally, a feature of this process was the relatively low activity in the export of capital abroad. This was due to the lack of domestic capital and the broad prospects for their use within the huge national market, which was rapidly developing as capitalist social relations became established and deepened. Under these conditions, Russia objectively turned into an object of widespread foreign investment. This was explained by the possibility of obtaining super-profits due to the low cost of labor and colossal raw material resources. Foreign capital merged with domestic banking capital, whose free resources were actively invested in the development of production and infrastructure, which accelerated the pace of industrialization of the national economy and thereby contributed to Russia’s entry into the number of industrially developed countries in the world.

Thus, the problem of a radical renewal of all spheres of life (primarily economic) again faced Russia at the turn of the century. Modernization had to be carried out over a vast area, in a country with many feudal remnants and stable conservative traditions. The formation of state-monopoly capitalism took place with the participation of foreign capital in conditions of a chronic lack of money in the treasury. Moreover, the crisis of 1900-1903 dealt a powerful blow to public finances. The state treasury was virtually empty. After the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905) and the Revolution (1905-1907), Russia's national debt exceeded 4 billion rubles. The government tried to reduce the state budget deficit by increasing the tax burden and reducing spending on economic, military and cultural programs. Large foreign loans supported the financial system for some time, but annual payments on them on the eve of the First World War reached 405 million rubles.

At the same time, the internal policy of the last Russian Emperor Nicholas II (1894-1917) and his government was built primarily on great-power principles. The system of supreme governing bodies was designed to strengthen and support autocracy. However, social tension grew due to the rapid development of capitalist social relations. The contradictions between the landowner and peasant agricultural sectors of the country's economy deepened. The post-reform community could no longer contain the tension of social differentiation of the peasantry. The growing national bourgeoisie gradually laid claim to a greater role in the political sphere of society, encountering some opposition from the nobility and the state bureaucracy. The main support of the autocracy - the nobility - was losing its monopoly on power.

The revival and further development of capitalist social relations, the formation of a diversified national market (goods, raw materials, labor and capital) objectively required reform of the political and state system. In the political sphere, supporters (S. Witte) and opponents (V. Plehve) of industrial modernization and political reforms were clearly identified.

The state tried to support domestic entrepreneurs: a protectionist customs tariff was established (1891); in the period 1900-1903, despite the crisis, the state supported industry and the national banking system with subsidies. At the same time, the government of Nicholas II tried to influence the nascent workers' and peasants' movement. Under the supervision of the police, legal workers' societies were created in large industrial centers of Russia, and a "Special Meeting on the Needs of the Agricultural Industry" was established (1902). These organizations pursued the main goal - control over the social movement in the country by the autocracy.

The intelligentsia became the social base on the basis of which in the late 19th - early 20th centuries. Various political parties are formed. Let's look at the main political parties in Russia during this period.

In September 1905, the Constitutional Democratic Party was formed. In the party program, approved at the founding congress in October 1905, the main tasks were as follows: the formation of a bicameral parliament, one chamber of which would consist of representatives of local government bodies; giving parliament the power to authorize any legislative act and approve the budget; restoration of the democratic principles of the judicial reform of 1864; abolition of redemption payments for peasants, development of direct taxation, alienation of state and landowners' lands for payment and allotment of them to needy peasants; development of leasing in the agricultural sector; presumption of the right of workers to strike and elective labor inspections, an eight-hour working day, a ban on night and overtime work, state social insurance, criminal liability of entrepreneurs for violating labor laws, etc.

Close to the constitutional democrats (the so-called Cadets) in spirit and programmatic requirements, the moderate-progressive party insisted on the inviolability of the supreme power of the tsar and the responsibility of the government to the representatives of the people. In the field of state reform, this party defended the integrity of the Russian state with the independence of local self-government, and opposed any kind of autonomies and federations. In the sphere of labor relations, she stood in solidarity with the Cadets, opposing only the establishment of an 8-hour working day, which, according to party ideologists, weakened the position of the domestic economy in competition with the economies of Western countries.

The All-Russian Trade and Industrial Union advocated a unified empire with a constitutional monarch and cabinet of ministers, based on a parliamentary majority (English constitutional model). The programmatic and political goal of the party was the economic commonwealth of the commercial and industrial classes, the representation of this commonwealth in all public organizations, parliament and government institutions.

"Union of October 17" is a political party whose motto is: "Strong power will lead the country out of chaos." Its ideologists were based on the platform underlying the Manifesto of October 17, 1905. Let us recall that the defeat of Russia in the war with Japan contributed to the intensification of the revolutionary movement. After the murder of V. Plehve by the Socialist Revolutionaries, the “era of trust” began, proclaimed by the new Minister of Internal Affairs P. Svyatopolk-Mirsky. But the events of January 9, 1905 changed government policy. Two virtually mutually exclusive government acts are published - an order that allowed the population to submit projects to improve the state structure, and a manifesto that affirmed the inviolability of autocracy (February 1905). In May 1905, a draft on the creation of a legislative advisory body (Bulyginskaya Duma) was submitted to the Cabinet of Ministers for consideration. The government tried to maneuver, as a result of which the Manifesto of October 17, 1905 appeared, which marked the beginning of bourgeois constitutionalism in Russia. The "Union of October 17" advocated the preservation of a unitary state, a constitutional monarchy with popular representation based on general suffrage. The monarchy was recognized as a pacifying and stabilizing factor for society and the state. On the agrarian issue, the party called for the abolition of administrative guardianship over the peasantry, the creation of a state land fund, and the widespread inclusion of communal lands in economic circulation. The Octobrists supported the ideas of social insurance and welfare, legislative regulation of the sphere of labor and the so-called “pure liberalism”; the creation of an estateless zemstvo as a small territorial unit, an elective principle in local justice.

The party of monarchist-constitutionalists proceeded from the main idea: “The Tsar is the father of the people, Russia is unthinkable without a Tsar.” It was proposed to solve the peasant question by transferring communal land use to household land use and a radical reorganization of the peasant bank. At the same time, the idea of ​​​​forming a state land fund was rejected. It was proposed to reform public education on a corporate basis with the encouragement of rational elements of nationalism. The party program contained an indication of the “danger of the political views of Jewry.” The general political attitude was postulated as follows: “Universal, equal, direct and secret suffrage is impossible at the dawn of parliamentarism in Russia.”

The parties listed above formed the right wing of the political spectrum, genetically linked to the ideologies of “soil” and “civilization” as they existed at the beginning of the twentieth century. The slogan of right-wing parties and social movements became the thesis: “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality.” At the same time, on the right flank there was a regrouping of a significant number of various kinds of “Black Hundred” unions, societies, brotherhoods, squads and leagues, which united in November 1905 into the “Union of the Russian People”. The Union had an extensive system of local government bodies under the leadership of the so-called Main Council, whose activities were supported by the state and the church. The Black Hundreds recognized the autocratic monarchy as the only acceptable form of government for the country.

As for the parties on the left wing of the political spectrum, they were formed on the basis of populist and Marxist ideology. In 1898, representatives of the Union of Struggle for the Liberation of the Working Class, the Rabochaya Gazeta and Bund* groups held a congress in Minsk, proclaiming the formation of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (RSDLP). At the second congress of the party in 1903, it split into “Bolsheviks” and “Mensheviks”. The Party Program and Charter were also adopted here. The RSDLP (b) entered the revolution of 1905 with a clear program of political and government reforms. Autocracy was recognized as a social relic and the worst enemy of the people. It was proposed to form a unicameral parliament on the basis of universal, equal, direct suffrage, create elected courts, separate the church from the state, carry out the general arming of the people, establish a progressive income tax, an 8-hour working day, prohibit fines in production, introduce criminal liability for entrepreneurs for violation labor legislation. For peasants, it was proposed to cancel redemption payments and allow the alienation of palace, landowner and monastery lands. In the political sphere, the overthrow of the autocracy and the transfer of power to the Constituent Assembly were proclaimed.

The ideological successor of the Narodnaya Volya party was the Socialist Revolutionary Party (SRs), formed in 1902. Its main slogan: “Socialization of the land” (abolition of private ownership of land), the main method of struggle is terror. In the political field, the Socialist Revolutionaries insisted on the introduction of a democratic republic with broad regional autonomy, universal suffrage and the replacement of the regular army with a people's militia. As allies in the implementation of their main goal - the elimination of autocracy and the convocation Zemsky Sobor (Constituent Assembly) - the Socialist Revolutionaries considered the RSDLP.

In its domestic policy at the beginning of the twentieth century, the tsarist government was unable to adequately solve the problems caused by Russia's entry into the stage of industrial development. As for the foreign policy of the autocracy, in general, he was unable to avoid the struggle for spheres of influence and the redivision of the world between the most developed capitalist countries. In the history of Russia, the beginning of the twentieth century was marked by a tragic interweaving of failures in domestic and foreign policy of the state. Despite the implementation of some fundamentally bourgeois reforms, the country still remained an absolute monarchy. The autocracy relied on the local nobility and protected, first of all, its interests. The unlimited power of the supreme power was manifested in the power of officials and the lack of rights of the masses. Russia remained the only major Western country that did not know elements of parliamentarism. Almost all segments of the population were dissatisfied with the policies of the autocracy. Even the landowners were indignant at the inability of the supreme power to resist the unrest in society. The extremely difficult internal political situation in Russia was noticeably aggravated by the war with Japan (1904-1905).

The unsuccessful course and outcome of the Russo-Japanese War for Russia caused indignation at the policies of the autocracy in wide sections of Russian society and, along with the deterioration of the financial situation of workers in connection with the crisis of 1900-1903, became a catalyst that accelerated the emergence of the bourgeois-democratic revolution of 1905-1907.

The beginning of the revolution was the so-called “Bloody Sunday” - January 9, 1905, when the tsarist troops and police shot down a peaceful march of over 140 thousand workers of the capital to the Winter Palace to submit a petition to the tsar about their needs. This caused an unprecedented explosion of popular indignation and unrest throughout the country.

By its nature, the revolution of 1905-1907 was bourgeois-democratic, since it aimed at bourgeois-democratic transformations in society and the state: the overthrow of the autocracy, the establishment of a democratic republic, the elimination of the class system and landownership.

There are three main stages:

January 9 - September 1905. Political strikes and demonstrations in a number of cities, the emergence of the country's first Council of Workers' Deputies in Ivanovo-Voznesensk, an uprising on the battleship of the Black Sea Fleet "Potemkin";

October - December 1905. October All-Russian political strike, the Tsar's Manifesto of October 17, the creation of the Russian parliament - the legislative State Duma, the defeat of the December armed uprising in Moscow;

January 1906 - June 3, 1907. The decline of the revolution, the dispersal of the 1st and 2nd State Dumas, the completion of the revolution with temporary internal political stabilization in Russia.

The main result of the bourgeois-democratic revolution of 1905-1907 was that the supreme power was forced to change the socio-political system of Russia. New state institutions emerged in the country, indicating the beginning of the era of parliamentarism. Some limitation of autocracy was achieved, although the tsar retained the ability to make legislative decisions and full executive power.

Speaking about the history and features of the Russian parliament, it is necessary to note the following. In April 1906, the 1st State Duma began to meet. The composition of Duma deputies is 34% cadets, 14% Octobrists, 23% Trudoviks (close to the Social Revolutionaries), about 4% Mensheviks. The Bolsheviks boycotted the elections to the State Duma, and the Black Hundreds did not get into it. This Duma proposed a program for the democratization of Russia: the introduction of ministerial responsibility to parliament; guarantees of civil liberties; establishment of universal free education; carrying out agrarian reform; meeting the demands of national minorities; abolition of the death penalty; political amnesty for participants in the revolution. The key consideration in the Duma was the consideration of projects on the agrarian issue of the Cadets and Trudoviks. The government, supported by conservatives, rejected them, which intensified its confrontation with the State Duma. 72 days after the opening of the Duma, the Tsar dissolved it, saying that it did not calm the people, but inflamed passions.

The 2nd State Duma (February - July 1907) turned out to be even more “leftist” than the 1st. The Cadet Center had 19% of places; right flank strengthened: 10% Black Hundreds, 15% Octobrists and bourgeois-nationalist deputies; Trudoviks, Socialist Revolutionaries and Social Democrats formed a “left” bloc - 222 seats, or 43%. As in the 1st Duma, the agrarian question was central in the 2nd. Projects of forced alienation of landowners' lands frightened the government. Having existed for 102 days, the Duma was dissolved by the Tsar's manifesto of June 3, 1907.

This manifesto symbolized the emergence in Russia of a new system of political organization of the state, called the “June Third Monarchy.” During this period, the government's internal policy was determined by objective post-revolutionary conditions. On the one hand, it was aimed at suppressing the anti-autocratic movement. On the other hand, it was no longer possible not to take into account the lessons of the revolution, which testified to the need for reforms to expand the social support of the supreme power. In this regard, two lines were clearly visible in the internal policy of the autocracy: the onset of reaction in all areas of public life and maneuvering between different social forces. The first line was carried out by administrative and ideological measures of the government, supported by the power-oriented media and the church. The second line was carried out through the adoption and implementation of new legislative acts*.

The ability of the government to maneuver between various political forces was ensured by the electoral law established by the same manifesto of June 3, 1907. Based on this law, elections to the 3rd State Duma were no longer universal, but class-based, unequal, indirect and multi-stage, taking place in an atmosphere of total police investigation and terror. The 3rd State Duma worked from November 1907 to June 1912. It included: 32% of “right” deputies; 33% of the Octobrists who made up the center; 12% of the Cadets, 3% of the Trudoviks, 4.2% of the Social Democrats and 6% of the nationalist parties formed the “left” flank. It was in the 3rd State Duma, which existed for 5 years, that the mechanism of the so-called parliamentary Octobrist “pendulum” took shape.

At the end of 1912, elections to the 4th State Duma took place. Its party composition has remained virtually unchanged. It retained two majorities: the right-Octobrist and the Octobrist-Cadet. However, the social movement in the country has intensified significantly. A new liberal Progressive Party took shape, headed by representatives of monopoly capital - A. Konovalov, P. Ryabushinsky, S. Tretyakov and others. Declaring the program goals of their party, its leaders advocated a constitutional-monarchical system, expansion of the powers of the State Duma and increased responsibility of ministers in front of her. The progressives occupied an intermediate position between the Octobrists and the Cadets and tried to achieve the consolidation of all liberals.

The appearance of parliament in Russia could not completely relieve the tension in the internal politics of the state, in which the agrarian question occupied a central place after the revolution of 1905-1907. A persistent attempt to solve it was made by P. Stolypin, who was first appointed Minister of Internal Affairs (April 1906), and soon chairman of the Council of Ministers. Stolypin’s famous phrase largely characterized the essence of his policy: “Opponents of statehood would like to choose the path of radicalism, the path of liberation from Russia’s historical past, liberation from cultural traditions. They need great upheavals, we need a Great Russia!”

Literature

1. Avrekh A.Ya. Stolypin and the Third State Duma, M., 1968.

2. Vernadsky G.V. Russian history. M., 1997.

3. Wert N. History of the Soviet state. 1900-1991 M., 1992.

4. Choosing a path. History of Russia 1861-1938 / Ed. O.A. Vaskovsky, A.T. Tertyshny. Ekaterinburg, 1995.

5. Zyryanov P.N. Pyotr Arkadyevich Stolypin. // Questions of History, 1990, No. 5.

6. Ignatiev A.V.S.Yu. Witte is a diplomat. M., 1989.

7. Karavaeva I. On the role of the state in the development of industrial entrepreneurship in Russia before 1917 // Questions of Economics, 1996, No. 9.

8. Markova A.N., Skvortsova E.M., Andreeva I.A. Russian history. M., 2001.

9. Munchaev Sh.M., Ustinov V.V. History of Russia. M., 2000.

10. Rybas S., Tarakanova L. Reformer: The Life and Death of Pyotr Stolypin. M., 1991.

11. Ferro M. Nicholas II. M., 1991.

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.