30 years of the 19th century. Ideological struggle and social movement in Russia in the first half of the 19th century
All public life Russia was placed under the strictest supervision by the state, which was carried out by the forces of the 3rd branch, its extensive network of agents and scammers. This caused the decline social movement.
A few circles tried to continue the work of the Decembrists. In 1827, at Moscow University, the Kritsky brothers organized a secret circle, whose goals were to destroy royal family, as well as constitutional reforms in Russia.
In 1831, the tsarist guards discovered and destroyed the circle of N.P. Sungurov, whose members were preparing an armed uprising in Moscow. In 1832, the “Literary Society of the 11th Number” operated at Moscow University, of which V.G. Belinsky. In 1834, the circle of A.I. Herzen.
In the 30-40s. three ideological and political trends emerged: reactionary-protective, liberal, and revolutionary-democratic.
The principles of the reactionary-protective direction were expressed in his theory by the Minister of Education S.S. Uvarov. Autocracy, serfdom, Orthodoxy were declared the most important foundations and a guarantee against upheavals and unrest in Russia. The conductors of this theory were professors of Moscow University M.P. Pogodin, S.P. Shevyrev.
The liberal opposition movement was represented by social movements of Westerners and Slavophiles.
The central idea in the concept of the Slavophiles is the belief in a peculiar way of Russia's development. Thanks to Orthodoxy, harmony has developed in the country between different strata of society. Slavophiles called for a return to pre-Petrine patriarchy and true Orthodox faith. They especially criticized reforms of Peter the Great.
Slavophiles left numerous works on philosophy and history (I.V. and P.V. Kirievsky, I.S. and K.S. Aksakov, D.A. Valuev), in theology (A.S. Khomyakov), sociology, economics and politics (Yu.F. Samarin). They published their ideas in the magazines Moskovityanin and Russkaya Pravda.
Westernism emerged in the 1930s and 1940s. 19th century in the circle of representatives of the nobility and the raznochintsy intelligentsia. The main idea is the concept of common historical development of Europe and Russia. Liberal Westerners advocated a constitutional monarchy with guarantees of freedom of speech, the press, a public court and democracy (T.N. Granovsky, P.N. Kudryavtsev, E.F. Korsh, P.V. Annenkov, V.P. Botkin). reform activity They considered Peter the Great to be the beginning of the renewal of old Russia and offered to continue it by carrying out bourgeois reforms.
Huge popularity in the early 40's. acquired the literary circle of M.V. Petrashevsky, which over the four years of its existence was visited by leading representatives of society (M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, F.M. Dostoevsky, A.N. Pleshcheev, A.N. Maikov, P.A. Fedotov, M.I. Glinka, P. P. Semenov, A. G. Rubinstein, N. G. Chernyshevsky, L. N. Tolstoy).
Since the winter of 1846, the circle was radicalized, its most moderate members withdrew, forming a left revolutionary wing headed by N.A. Speshnev. Its members advocated the revolutionary transformation of society, the elimination of the autocracy, the liberation of the peasants.
The father of the "theory of Russian socialism" was A.I. Herzen, who combined Slavophilism with the socialist doctrine. He considered the peasant community to be the main cell of the future society, with the help of which one could come to socialism, bypassing capitalism.
In 1852 Herzen left for London, where he opened the Free Russian Printing House. Bypassing censorship, he laid the foundation for the Russian foreign press.
The initiator of the revolutionary-democratic movement in Russia is V.G. Belinsky. He published his views and ideas in Otechestvennye Zapiski and in the Letter to Gogol, where he sharply criticized Russian tsarism and proposed a path of democratic reforms.
The term "Slavophiles" is essentially accidental. This name was given to them by their ideological opponents - Westerners in the heat of controversy. The Slavophils themselves initially denied this name, considering themselves not Slavophiles, but “Russo-lovers” or “Russophiles”, emphasizing that they were mainly interested in the fate of Russia, the Russian people, and not the Slavs in general. A.I. Koshelev pointed out that they should most likely be called "natives" or, more precisely, "original people", because their main goal was to protect the identity historical destiny of the Russian people not only in comparison with the West, but also with the East. Early Slavophilism (before the reform of 1861) was also not characterized by pan-Slavism, which was already inherent in late (post-reform) Slavophilism. Slavophilism as an ideological and political trend in Russian social thought leaves the stage around the middle of the 70s of the 19th century.
The main thesis of the Slavophiles is proof of the original path of development of Russia, more precisely, the requirement to “follow this path”, the idealization of “original” institutions, primarily the peasant community and Orthodox Church.
The government was wary of the Slavophiles: they were forbidden to wear demonstrative beards and Russian dresses, some of the Slavophiles were imprisoned for several months in the Peter and Paul Fortress for harshness of statements. All attempts to publish Slavophile newspapers and magazines were immediately suppressed. The Slavophils were subjected to persecution in the conditions of the strengthening of the reactionary political course under the influence of the Western European revolutions of 1848-1849. This forced them to curtail their activities for a while. In the late 50s - early 60s, A.I. Koshelev, Yu.F. Samarin, V.A. Cherkassky - active participants in the preparation and conduct of peasant reform.
Westernism , like Slavophilism, arose at the turn of the 30s - 40s of the XIX century. The Moscow circle of Westerners took shape in 1841-1842. Contemporaries interpreted Westernism very broadly, including among Westerners in general all those who opposed the Slavophiles in their ideological disputes. The Westernizers, along with such moderate liberals as P.V. Annenkov, V.P. Botkin, N.Kh. Ketcher, V.F. Korsh, V.G. Belinsky, A.I. Herzen, N.P. Ogarev. However, Belinsky and Herzen called themselves "Westerners" in their disputes with the Slavophiles.
In terms of their social origin and position, the majority of Westerners, like the Slavophiles, belonged to the noble intelligentsia. Among the Westerners were well-known professors of Moscow University - historians T.N. Granovsky, S.M. Solovyov, jurists M.N. Katkov, K.D. Kavelin, philologist F.I. Buslaev, as well as prominent writers I.I. Panaev, I.S. Turgenev, I.A. Goncharov, later N.A. Nekrasov.
The Westerners opposed themselves to the Slavophiles in disputes about the ways of Russia's development. They argued that although Russia was “late”, it was following the same path of historical development as all Western European countries, they advocated its Europeanization.
Westerners glorified Peter I, who, as they said, "saved Russia." They considered the activities of Peter as the first phase of the renewal of the country, the second should begin with reforms from above - they will be an alternative to the path of revolutionary upheavals. Professors of history and law (for example, S.M. Solovyov, K.D. Kavelin, B.N. Chicherin) great importance gave a role state power in the history of Russia and became the founders of the so-called state school in Russian historiography. Here they were based on the scheme of Hegel, who considered the state to be the creator of the development of human society.
Westerners propagated their ideas from university departments, in articles published in the Moscow Observer, Moskovskie Vedomosti, Otechestvennye Zapiski, and later in Russkiy Vestnik and Ateney. Readable T.N. Granovsky in 1843 - 1851. cycles of public lectures on Western European history, in which he proved the commonality of the laws of the historical process in Russia and Western European countries, according to Herzen, "made propaganda into history." The Westernizers also made extensive use of the Moscow salons, where they “fought” with the Slavophiles and where the enlightened elite of Moscow society gathered to see “who will finish whom and how they will finish him himself.” Heated debates broke out. Speeches were prepared in advance, articles and treatises were written. Herzen was especially sophisticated in his polemical fervor against the Slavophiles. It was an outlet in the deadly atmosphere of Nikolaev Russia.
Despite differences in views, Slavophiles and Westernizers grew up from the same root. Almost all of them belonged to the most educated part of the noble intelligentsia, being prominent writers, scientists, publicists. Most of them were students of Moscow University. The theoretical basis of their views was German classical philosophy. Both those and others were worried about the fate of Russia, the ways of its development. Both those and others acted as opponents of the Nikolaev system. “We, like two-faced Janus, looked in different directions, but our hearts were the same,” Herzen would later say.
It must be said that all directions of Russian social thought, from the reactionary to the revolutionary, advocated “nationality”, putting completely different content into this concept. The revolutionary considered “nationality” in terms of democratization national culture and enlightenment of the masses in the spirit of advanced ideas, saw in the masses the social support of revolutionary transformations.
3. Revolutionary direction
The revolutionary direction was formed around the journals Sovremennik and Domestic Notes, which were led by V.G. Belinsky with the participation of A.I. Herzen and N.A. Nekrasov. Supporters of this direction also believed that Russia would follow the European path of development, but, unlike the liberals, they believed that revolutionary upheavals were inevitable.
Until the mid 50s. the revolution was a necessary condition for the abolition of serfdom for A.I. Herzen . Dissociated in the late 40's. from Westernism, he came to the idea of "Russian socialism", which was based on the free development of the Russian community and artel in conjunction with the ideas of European socialism and assumed self-government on a national scale and public ownership of land.
A characteristic phenomenon in Russian literature and journalism of that time was the distribution of “seditious” poems, political pamphlets and journalistic “letters” in the lists, which, under the then censorship conditions, could not appear in print. Among them, the written v 1847 Belinsky “ Letter to Gogol ”. The reason for his writing was the publication in 1846 by Gogol of the religious and philosophical work "Selected passages from correspondence with friends." In a review of the book published in Sovremennik, Belinsky wrote in harsh terms about the author's betrayal of his creative heritage, about his religiously “humble” views, and self-humiliation. Gogol considered himself insulted and sent a letter to Belinsky, in which he regarded his review as a manifestation of personal hostility towards himself. This prompted Belinsky to write his famous Letter to Gogol.
The “Letter” sharply criticized the system of Nicholas Russia, which, according to Belinsky, “is a terrible sight of a country where people traffic in people where there are not only no guarantees for personality, honor and property, but there is not even a police order, but there are only huge corporations of various official thieves and robbers”. Belinsky also attacks the official church - the servant of the autocracy, proves the "deep atheism" of the Russian people and questions the religiosity of church pastors. He does not spare the famous writer either, calling him “a preacher of the whip, an apostle of ignorance, a champion of obscurantism and obscurantism, a panegyrist of Tatar morals.”
The most immediate, urgent tasks facing Russia at that time, Belinsky formulated as follows: “The abolition of serfdom, the abolition of corporal punishment, the introduction, if possible, of strict enforcement of at least those laws that already exist.” Belinsky's letter was distributed in thousands of lists and caused a great public outcry.
P. Ya. became an independent figure in the ideological opposition to the Nikolaev rule. Chaadaev (1794 - 1856). A graduate of Moscow University, a participant in the battle of Borodino and the "battle of the peoples" near Leipzig, a friend of the Decembrists and A.S. Pushkin, in 1836 he published in the journal Teleskop the first of his Philosophical Letters, which, according to Herzen, "shook all thinking Russia." Rejecting the official theory of Russia's "amazing" past and "magnificent" present, Chaadaev gave a very gloomy assessment of Russia's historical past and its role in world history; he was extremely pessimistic about the possibilities of social progress in Russia. main reason Russia's separation from the European historical tradition Chaadaev considered the rejection of Catholicism in favor of the religion of serf slavery - Orthodoxy. The government regarded the "Letter" as an anti-government speech: the magazine was closed, the publisher was sent into exile, the censor was fired, and Chaadaev was declared insane and placed under police supervision.
The first half of the 19th century is characterized by the aggravation of the ideological and political situation in Russia. This was due to the lag in development from European countries. The understanding of the situation was present not only among the entire progressive part of society, the landlords also adhered to the same opinion. The sovereigns, Alexander I and Nicholas I, also realized the need for reforms. But no changes were made during their reign. Ideas for improving society were also present in Europe, but there it was expressed in the improvement of the bourgeoisie. Russian ideologists, on the other hand, focused on breaking autocracy and serfdom, since industry was only in its infancy.
The origin of the ideological movement took place only in the advanced part of the nobility. In other estates, such ideas did not arise for the following reasons:
The feudal peasantry was uneducated and could not understand the situation.
The understanding of this issue only reached the landlords, since they were closely connected with the land.
The bourgeoisie as a class has not yet formed.
Under these conditions, the progressive nobility did not always find a response in their views from the rest of the class.
social movement in early XIX century began to manifest itself in the formation of political circles and organizations, which are presented in the table.
Name of the organization | Description of activity |
|---|---|
Circle "Choka" | In 1811 it was created by Muravyov. It consisted of 7 people. Had an illusory goal to form a republic on Sakhalin Island |
Union of Salvation | This political organization future Decembrists, formed in 1816. Its founders were Pestel, Muravyov, Trubetskoy. Its program included the overthrow of the autocracy and the elimination of serfdom. However, some members held different views. They wanted a constitutional monarchy. |
Welfare Union | The organization existed from 1818 to 1821. The leaders were Muravyov, Muravyov-Apostles, Yakushkin and Lunin. It had its own program, recorded in the "Green Book". It spoke of the need to overthrow the autocracy and eliminate serfdom by force. The organization operated semi-legally. In order to implement the program, the serfs were bought out with their subsequent release into the wild. |
northern society | Educated in St. Petersburg since 1821. Muravyov was its leader. The organization operated jointly with the Southern Society. She advocated the formation of a parliament and vesting it with legislative power. At the same time, the executive branch was given to the monarch. Gave impetus to the uprising of the Decembrists in St. Petersburg |
Southern society | It was formed in 1821 by Pestel in Ukraine. This man was of the opinion of building a republican system. It was this organization that paved the way for the uprising of the future Decembrists in the south |
Decembrist revolt
By 1825, anarchy was formed in the state for a certain period. After the death of Alexander I, Constantine was to ascend the throne. However, he refused such a high position. Nicholas I for a long time did not dare to take the place of his elder brother. This time was the best suited for the Decembrist uprising.
Causes of the uprising
After the war of 1812 with France, Russian officers crossed the border and saw the European standard of living. This produced a turning point in the ideology of the progressive part of society, which led to the future uprising of the Decembrists.
The reasons for it were as follows:
- Industrial backwardness of Russia. In Europe manual labor replaced cars.
- Lack of democracy and freedom of speech.
- The repressive actions shown by the emperors in relation to the peasantry.
The leaders of the Northern Society issued a Manifesto demanding the elimination of autocracy and serfdom. This document was sent to the Senate.
The course of the uprising in St. Petersburg
- Moscow regiment.
- Sailors of the Guards crew.
- Some units of the Petersburg garrison.
- Simple people.
If the number of soldiers among the rebels reached 3000 people, then ordinary people more than 10,000 thousand gathered. Nicholas I, who had already managed to take power into his own hands, put up government troops in the amount of 12,000 people.
An appeal to the rebels with a demand to disperse did not lead to anything. Then, from the side of the sovereign, an order was given to give a blank artillery shot. He didn't get any results either. A volley of grapeshot followed, followed by an offensive by government troops. The rebels were pushed back from the square. A mass exodus began. Many fell on the fragile ice of the Neva and drowned. The uprising was put down.
Reasons for the defeat
The main causes of failure include:
- Insufficient preparedness of society for a revolution.
- Weak propaganda.
- Poor coordination of actions during the uprising.
The main stake was placed on a conspiracy and a subsequent military coup. This was clearly not enough.
Movement in the second quarter of the 19th century
Despite the defeat of the Decembrists, the social movement continued to develop. It was divided into 3 directions, which are presented in the table.
Directions | Policy |
|---|---|
Conservatives | They preached the idea of strengthening autocracy and serfdom. It was believed that only a monarchy could rule in Russia, and serfdom is a blessing to the people. |
liberals | They were divided into Slavophiles and Westerners. Both currents wanted to eliminate the monarchy and serfdom. However, there were also differences in ideological views. The Slavophils were guided by the originality of Russia, relying on the times of the pre-Petrine era. Westerners, on the other hand, saw the development of the state in line with European countries. |
Radicals | They fully supported the ideology of the Decembrists. We saw the mistakes they made and had a program to overcome them. |
Petrashevtsy
So the members of the circle began to be called, which was formed in the 40s of the 19th century by Butashevich-Petrashevsky. This included such prominent writers as Dostoevsky and Saltykov-Shchedrin. Together they created the first library on humanities. It could be used not only by residents of St. Petersburg, but also by the population of the provinces. Members of the circle held regular meetings, which were called "Friday". They discussed political issues related to the future of Russia. In order to convey their views to wide circles of society, the Petrashevites published the Pocket Dictionary foreign words". It contained a description of European socialist doctrines.
In 1849 the circle was opened. Leaders were sentenced to death penalty, but later the punishment was replaced by life imprisonment.
Socialist ideas in Russia
The beginning of the development of socialist ideas in Russia is inextricably linked with Herzen. Pursuing literary activity in the period of 30-40 years, he realized that he would not have the opportunity for fruitful work due to the lack of freedom of speech. The works he published were directed against violence and enslavement. Therefore, in 1847, he moved abroad, where he published the newspaper "The Bell" and published a collection of books "Polar Star".
In his vision, Russia was to take the socialist path of development. He believed that the abolition of private ownership of land would be a boon to the peasants. Working in the peasant community, they will create a strong cell of socialist society.
He did not have clear explanations of how this would happen. However, his theory became the starting point for the future activities of the revolutionary Narodniks of the 70s.
The historical significance of the social movement of this period
Despite the failure of the December uprising, the social movement of the first half of the 19th century left its mark on the history of Russia. It consisted of the following:
The authorities heard the demands of the people and were frightened by them.
Changes have taken place in the army. The soldiers had their service life reduced.
The Decembrists sent to Siberia influenced the cultural development of the territory.
At the end of the first half of the 19th century, the prerequisites were created for fundamental reforms carried out by the new Tsar Alexander II.
The results of the social movement
The result of the social movement in the first half of the 19th century was an intensified censorship terror. If during the time of Alexander I a liberal policy was observed here, then immediately after his death, Nicholas I adopted a new censorship charter. In the people, he received the name "cast iron". Its implementation was aimed at combating dangerous political organizations.
Especially censorship terror developed in the last 7 years of the reign of Nicholas I. A network of censorship institutions was created that suppressed any sprouts of dissent. Demandingness exceeded all reasonable measures.
Such actions of the authorities were aimed at retaining the autocracy by any means.
