The theory of the official nationality of Slavophiles and Westerners. Slavophiles and Westerners. The theory of official nationality

When the caravan turns back, a lame camel is ahead

Eastern wisdom

The two dominant philosophical thoughts in Russia in the 19th century were Westerners and Slavophiles. This was an important debate from the point of view of choosing not only the future of Russia, but also its foundations and traditions. This is not just a choice of which part of civilization this or that society belongs to, it is a choice of a path, a determination of the vector of future development. In Russian society, back in the 19th century, there was a fundamental split in views on the future of the state: some considered the states of Western Europe as an example for inheritance, the other part argued that the Russian Empire should have its own special model of development. These two ideologies went down in history, respectively, as “Westernism” and “Slavophilism.” However, the roots of the opposition of these views and the conflict itself cannot be limited only to the 19th century. To understand the situation, as well as the influence of ideas on today's society, it is necessary to delve a little deeper into history and expand the time context.

The roots of the emergence of Slavophiles and Westerners

It is generally accepted that the split in society over the choice of their path or the inheritance of Europe was brought about by the Tsar, and later by Emperor Peter 1, who tried to modernize the country in a European way and, as a result, brought to Rus' many ways and foundations that were characteristic exclusively of Western society. But this was only one, extremely striking example of how the issue of choice was decided by force, and this decision was imposed on the entire society. However, the history of the dispute is much more complex.

Origins of Slavophilism

First, you need to understand the roots of the appearance of Slavophiles in Russian society:

1. Religious values.
2. Moscow is the third Rome.
3. Peter's reforms

Religious values

Historians discovered the first dispute about the choice of development path in the 15th century. It took place around religious values. The fact is that in 1453 Constantinople, the center of Orthodoxy, was captured by the Turks. The authority of the local patriarch was falling, there was more and more talk that the priests of Byzantium were losing their “righteous moral character,” and in Catholic Europe this had been happening for a long time. Consequently, the Muscovite kingdom must protect itself from the church influence of these countries and carry out purification (“hesychasm”) from things unnecessary for a righteous life, including from “worldly vanity.” The opening of the patriarchate in Moscow in 1587 was proof that Russia has the right to “its own” church.

Moscow is the third Rome

Further definition of the need for one’s own path is associated with the 16th century, when the idea was born that “Moscow is the third Rome,” and therefore should dictate its own model of development. This model was based on the “gathering of Russian lands” to protect them from the harmful influence of Catholicism. Then the concept of “Holy Rus'” was born. Church and political ideas merged into one.

Peter's reform activities

Peter's reforms at the beginning of the 18th century were not understood by all his subjects. Many were convinced that these were unnecessary measures for Russia. In certain circles, there was even a rumor that the tsar was replaced during his visit to Europe, because “a real Russian monarch will never adopt alien orders.” Peter's reforms split society into supporters and opponents, which created the preconditions for the formation of “Slavophiles” and “Westerners.”

Origins of Westernism

As for the roots of the emergence of the ideas of Westerners, in addition to the above reforms of Peter, several more important facts should be highlighted:

• Discovery of Western Europe. As soon as subjects of Russian monarchs discovered the countries of the “other” Europe during the 16th-18th centuries, they understood the difference between the regions of Western and Eastern Europe. They began to ask questions about the reasons for the lag, as well as ways to solve this complex economic, social and political problem. Peter was under the influence of Europe; after his “foreign” campaign during the war with Napoleon, many nobles and intelligentsia began to create secret organizations, the purpose of which was to discuss future reforms using the example of Europe. The most famous such organization was the Decembrist Society.
• Ideas of the Enlightenment. This is the 18th century, when European thinkers (Rousseau, Montesquieu, Diderot) expressed ideas about universal equality, the spread of education, and also about limiting the power of the monarch. These ideas quickly found their way to Russia, especially after the opening of universities there.

The essence of ideology and its significance

Slavophilism and Westernism, as a system of views on the past and future of Russia, arose in the years 1830-1840. The writer and philosopher Alexei Khomyakov is considered one of the founders of Slavophilism. During this period, two newspapers were published in Moscow, which were considered the “voice” of the Slavophiles: “Moskvityanin” and “Russian Conversation”. All articles in these newspapers are full of conservative ideas, criticism of Peter’s reforms, as well as reflections on “Russia’s own path.”

One of the first ideological Westerners is considered to be the writer A. Radishchev, who ridiculed the backwardness of Russia, hinting that this was not a special path at all, but simply a lack of development. In the 1830s, P. Chaadaev, I. Turgenev, S. Soloviev and others criticized Russian society. Since the Russian autocracy was unpleasant to hear criticism, it was more difficult for Westerners than for Slavophiles. That is why some representatives of this movement left Russia.

Common and distinctive views of Westerners and Slavophiles

Historians and philosophers who study Westerners and Slavophiles identify the following subjects for discussion between these movements:

• Civilizational choice. For Westerners, Europe is the standard of development. For Slavophiles, Europe is an example of moral decline, a source of harmful ideas. Therefore, the latter insisted on a special path of development of the Russian state, which should have a “Slavic and Orthodox character.”
• The role of the individual and the state. Westerners are characterized by the ideas of liberalism, that is, individual freedom, its primacy over the state. For Slavophiles, the main thing is the state, and the individual must serve the general idea.
• The personality of the monarch and his status. Among Westerners there were two views on the monarch in the empire: either it should be removed (republican form of government) or limited (constitutional and parliamentary monarchy). Slavophiles believed that absolutism is a truly Slavic form of government, the constitution and parliament are political instruments alien to the Slavs. A striking example of this view of the monarch is the 1897 population census, where the last emperor of the Russian Empire indicated “owner of the Russian land” in the “occupation” column.
• Peasantry. Both movements agreed that serfdom was a relic, a sign of Russia’s backwardness. But the Slavophiles called for its elimination “from above,” that is, with the participation of the authorities and nobles, and Westerners called for listening to the opinions of the peasants themselves. In addition, the Slavophiles said that the peasant community is the best form of land management and farming. For Westerners, the community needs to be dissolved and a private farmer created (which is what P. Stolypin tried to do in 1906-1911).
• Freedom of information. According to Slavophiles, censorship is a normal thing if it is in the interests of the state. Westerners advocated freedom of the press, the free right to choose a language, etc.
• Religion. This is one of the main points of the Slavophiles, since Orthodoxy is the basis of the Russian state, “Holy Rus'”. It is Orthodox values ​​that Russia must protect, and therefore it should not adopt the experience of Europe, because it will violate Orthodox canons. A reflection of these views was Count Uvarov’s concept of “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality,” which became the basis for the construction of Russia in the 19th century. For Westerners, religion was not something special; many even talked about freedom of religion and the separation of church and state.

Transformation of ideas in the 20th century

At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, these two trends underwent a complex evolution and were transformed into directions and political trends. The theory of the Slavophiles, in the understanding of some intelligentsia, began to transform into the idea of ​​“Pan-Slavism”. It is based on the idea of ​​uniting all Slavs (possibly only Orthodox) under one flag of one state (Russia). Or another example: the chauvinistic and monarchist organizations “Black Hundreds” arose from Slavophilism. This is an example of a radical organization. The constitutional democrats (cadets) accepted some of the ideas of the Westerners. For socialist revolutionaries (SRs), Russia had its own model of development. The RSDLP (Bolsheviks) changed their views on the future of Russia: before the revolution, Lenin argued that Russia should follow the path of Europe, but after 1917 he declared his own, special path for the country. In fact, the entire history of the USSR is the implementation of the idea of ​​one’s own path, but in the understanding of the ideologists of communism. The influence of the Soviet Union in the countries of central Europe is an attempt to implement the same idea of ​​​​pan-Slavism, but in a communist form.

Thus, the views of Slavophiles and Westerners were formed over a long period of time. These are complex ideologies based on the choice of a value system. These ideas went through a complex transformation throughout the 19th-20th centuries and became the basis of many political movements in Russia. But it is worth recognizing that Slavophiles and Westerners are not a unique phenomenon in Russia. As history shows, in all countries that lagged behind in development, society was divided into those who wanted modernization and those who tried to justify themselves with a special model of development. Today this debate is also observed in the states of Eastern Europe.

Features of social movements in the 30-50s of the 19th century

Slavophiles and Westerners are not all social movements in Russia in the 19th century. They are simply the most common and well-known, because the sport of these two areas is still relevant to this day. Until now in Russia we see ongoing debates about “How to live further” - copy Europe or stay on your own path, which should be unique for each country and for each people. If we talk about social movements in the 30-50s of the 19th century in the Russian Empire, they were formed under the following circumstances

This must be taken into account since it is the circumstances and realities of time that shape people’s views and force them to commit certain actions. And it was precisely the realities of that time that gave rise to Westernism and Slavophilism.

The need for social change is increasingly reflected in the public consciousness. The generation of noble intellectuals, who grew up in conditions of broad ties with Europe, absorbing both the rise of national self-awareness and the achievements of European culture, was faced with the problem of developing ways for the further development of Russia. In the 30s - 40s. Three directions of socio-political thought have emerged in understanding the historical path of development of Russia: liberal, revolutionary and conservative.

The liberal direction included two sharply controversial trends: “Slavophile” and “Westernism”. Both developed in one form or another during the 19th - 20th centuries. and exist with certain changes today.

Slavophiles (A. S. Khomyakov, brothers I. V. and P. V. Kireevsky, brothers K. S. and I. S. Aksakov, Yu. F. Samarin, A. I. Koshelev, V. I. Dal) believed that Russia was following its own historical path, different from the European one (at its core, these views anticipated the modern concept of “independent” civilizations, the so-called “civilizational” approach to history). At the heart of Russian history, they believed, was a community where all its members were bound by common interests, in contrast to the class-antagonistic and individualistic West. Orthodoxy strengthened the initial willingness of Russian people to sacrifice personal interests for the sake of common ones, to provide assistance to the weak and to patiently endure all the hardships of earthly life. State power looked after the Russian people, protected them from external enemies, maintained the necessary order, without interfering in spiritual, private, local life, maintaining contact with the people through Zemsky Sobors. The reforms of Peter I destroyed the harmonious structure of Rus', since, in their opinion, he introduced serfdom, which divided the Russian people into slaves and masters, and instilled Western European morals in the latter, tearing them away from the masses. Under him, the state acquired a despotic character, turning the people into building material for creating an empire. Slavophiles called for the restoration of the old Russian foundations of social and state life, reviving the spiritual unity of the people. To do this, it was necessary to abolish serfdom, then, while maintaining autocracy, eliminate its despotic character, establishing a connection between the state and the people through Zemsky Sobors.

The ideological form of Westernism developed in opposition to Slavophilism around 1841. The leading role among the “Westerners” was played by: historians T. N. Granovsky, S. M. Solovyov, P. N. Kudryavtsev, K. D. Kavelin, B. N. Chicherin ; writers P. Ya. Chaadaev, P. V. Annenkov and others. Some classics of literature also joined them - I. S. Turgenev, I. A. Goncharov and others. They idealized the West, its culture and exaggerated the beneficial influence of its influence on Russia , believing that it lagged behind the West, since it entered the path of “civilized development” only as a result of the reforms of Peter I and will repeat the Western European path, which will involve the abolition of serfdom and the transformation of the autocracy into a constitutional monarchy of the Western type. The task of the educated part of society is to prepare and carry out, in cooperation with the authorities, consistent reforms, as a result of which the gap between Russia and Europe will be gradually eliminated.

Revolutionary direction of the 30s - 40s. sharply opposed the autocratic system and for its elimination through revolutionary means. It continued the traditions of the Decembrists and became more democratic. Its ideologists were A. I. Herzen, N. P. Ogarev and V. G. Belinsky (the latter with some temporary fluctuations).

On July 19, 1826, at a solemn prayer service in the Kremlin on the occasion of the execution of the Decembrists, 14-year-old Herzen vowed to “avenge those executed.” Having accepted the provisions of European utopian socialism, Herzen and Ogarev, in contrast, combined them with the idea of ​​revolution. Having taken a closer look at Europe in exile, Herzen realized that the bourgeois system that was establishing itself in the West had fundamental flaws and could not serve as a model for Russia, as the “Westerners” believed. Russia must not only catch up with European countries, repeating the vices of their social structure, but make a transition to a fundamentally new system of life based on the principles of collectivism and mutual assistance - socialism, developing on the basis of the surviving Russian peasant community. It should be noted that in Europe during this period a Marxist movement was developing, also of a radical revolutionary orientation.

Conservative, predominantly official ideology was put forward against all opposition ideological movements. In the fight against progressive forces, the Nikolaev reaction used all methods of action. Along with brutal repressions and lightweight reforms, ideological struggle was also used - the development and propaganda of one’s own official ideology. This is how the theory of “official nationality” appeared, designed to substantiate the inviolability of the existing foundations of Russian society. It included in the aggregate: “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality.” The formulation of “official nationality” was put forward by the Minister of Education S. S. Uvarov. Nicholas I did not really like him, but accepted the idea of ​​​​an official nationality, making it a state ideology. According to the outstanding Russian historian S. M. Solovyov, Uvarov “put forward the principles of Orthodoxy - being an atheist, autocracy - being a liberal, nationality, without having read a single Russian book in his life.”

SLAVOPHILES AND WESTERNS.

THEORY OF THE OFFICIAL PEOPLE.

Public life in Russia after the defeat of the Decembrist movement took place in an atmosphere of political reaction. Second half of the 20s - early 30s. - this is the time of activity of small circles, mainly student youth, small in composition, quickly discovered by the police.

Circle N.P. Sungurova, coming from the small landed nobility, it arose in 1831. According to Herzen, the direction of this circle was political. The members of the circle set their task to prepare an armed uprising. The participants of this organization hoped to outrage the “rabble”, seize the arsenal and distribute weapons to the people. An uprising was planned in Moscow. They believed it was necessary to introduce a constitutional system in Russia and kill the Tsar. The circle did not last long, and in the same 1831 ᴦ. followed by the arrest of its members. Sungurov himself was sentenced to exile in Siberia. From the first stage on Vorobyovy Gory he tried to escape, but he failed. He died at the Nerchinsk mines.

Circle Herzen and Ogarev formed in 1831, almost simultaneously with Sungurov’s circle. This circle was also secret and political in nature.
Posted on ref.rf
The members of Herzen and Ogarev's circle were mostly students of Moscow University. It included Sokolovsky, Utkin, Ketcher, Sazonov, V. Passek, Maslov, Satin and some other persons. They gathered for parties, sang revolutionary songs at them, made speeches and read poems with revolutionary content, and talked about the constitution. The views of the members of the circle of Herzen and Ogarev expressed protest against the reactionary, brutal regime created in the country by Nicholas I.

Through an agent provocateur, Section III learned of the existence of Herzen's circle, and soon, in 1834, its members were arrested. Two of them, Sokolovsky and Utkin, were imprisoned in the Shlisselburg fortress. Utkin died two years later in a dungeon, and Sokolovsky died in exile in Pyatigorsk. Herzen was exiled to Perm, Ogarev and Obolensky to Penza.

In 1830 ᴦ. took shape and existed until 1832. circle Belinsky, called the "Literary Society of the 11th number." It consisted of students Petrov, Grigoriev, Chistyakov, Protopopov, Prozorov and others. In this circle, Belinsky's drama "Dmitry Kalinin" was discussed; in it, he condemns serfdom with all the severity. Belinsky and the members of his circle were interested in questions of philosophy, and, therefore, when Belinsky later entered Stankevich’s circle, he was far from a novice in matters of philosophy, as many authors incorrectly asserted in relation to Belinsky.

Circle Stankevich had a “speculative”, scientific and philosophical direction. Stankevich had little interest in politics; his circle had the main task of studying the philosophical views of that time. The circle studied the philosophy of Fichte, Schelling and Hegel. The positions taken by Stankevich were moderate and liberal.

Stankevich’s circle included: Belinsky, Granovsky, Bakunin, Herzen, the Aksakov brothers, the Kireevsky brothers and other persons. Stankevich’s circle included revolutionary democrats, as well as Westerners and Slavophiles; The views of representatives of these three directions sharply diverged from each other, which subsequently led to their struggle among themselves.

The role of Stankevich's circle was that in his circle he aroused among his most prominent contemporaries an interest in the study of philosophy and united around him for a certain time many leading people of his era. For a short time, Bakunin played a major role in the circle. After Bakunin left abroad in the early 40s, the activities of Stankevich's former circle revived in connection with Herzen's return from exile. Herzen and a number of people close to him began studying philosophy. But Herzen approached the study of philosophical issues differently than Stankevich. Herzen connected the study of philosophy with the tasks of the revolutionary struggle.

However, we see that all attempts to create secret revolutionary organizations were suppressed by the tsarism with the most brutal measures. But Nicholas I pursued not only the creation of secret circles and organizations, but also any attempt at free thinking.

The victims of his repressions were the brilliant Russian poets A.S. Pushkin, M.Yu. Lermontov, talented poets Polezhaev, Pecherin and others. Landowner Lvov, Brizgda, Raevsky, high school student Orlov and some other persons were arrested for anti-government statements. P.Ya., who was close to the Decembrists, was also a victim of Nicholas despotism. Chaadaev.

At the turn of the 30-40s. XIX century There is a noticeable revival in the ideological life of Russian society. By this time, such currents and directions of Russian socio-political thought as protective, liberal-oppositional, had already clearly emerged, and the formation of a revolutionary-democratic current had begun.

The ideological expression of the protective direction was the theory of “official nationality”, developed by the Minister of Public Education S.S. Uvarov.

The theory of the official nationality was based on the ideas of the historian N.M. Karamzin, set out in his notes “On Ancient and New Russia” and “Opinion of a Russian Citizen” (the concept of autocracy as the Palladium of Russia).

The theory was developed in connection with the strengthening of the social movement in Russia with the goal of strengthening the existing system in new socio-political conditions. This theory had a special resonance for Russia due to the fact that in Western Europe in many countries in the first half of the 19th century. was done away with absolutism (from the Latin absolutus - independent, unlimited) - a form of government in which unlimited supreme power belongs to the monarch.)

The theory of official nationality is based on three principles: Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality. This theory reflected enlightenment ideas about unity, the voluntary union of the sovereign and the people, and the absence of opposing classes in Russian society. The originality lay in the recognition of autocracy as the only possible form of government in Russia. Serfdom was seen as a benefit for the people and the state. Orthodoxy was understood as the deep religiosity and commitment to Christianity inherent in the Russian people. From these arguments, the conclusion was drawn about the impossibility and unnecessaryness of fundamental social changes in Russia, and about the extreme importance of strengthening the autocracy and serfdom.

Since the time of Nicholas I, the theory of official nationality has been widely propagated through the press and introduced into the education system. This theory caused sharp criticism not only from the radical part of society, but also from liberals. The most famous was the speech of P.Ya. Chaadaev with criticism of autocracy.

P.Ya. Chaadaev was the founder of educational criticism of Slavophilism. He criticized it even before it was formed by 1839 ᴦ., ᴛ.ᴇ. in the process of its formation.

Already in letters from the mid-30s and especially in “Apology of a Madman” (1837), Chaadaev gives a sharp criticism of Slavophilism, the ideas of which already at that time were, as they say, “floating in the air.”

According to most contemporaries and researchers of the history of Russian social thought, Chaadaev’s ideas, especially his first “Philosophical Letter,” were a catalyst for the formation of Slavophile ideology (the school of Slavophiles). This “Letter” (like the entire treatise of the “Philosophical Letter”) had as one of its main subjects the very problem that was central to the Slavophiles - the problem of the development of Russia in its relation to Western Europe.

Of course, Chaadaev was not the first to pose this problem in Russian thought. He was not the first “Westernizer.” The mid-20s (so as not to go back to even more distant times, when these problems were also discussed) are already full of relevant materials, including materials from the Moscow “circle of wise men”, to which I. Kireevsky and A. Khomyakov, the future founders of Slavophilism, joined.

Moreover, before Chaadaev’s speech, these disputes and the concepts posed in them did not reach that generality, that inclusion in the context of an entire philosophical system, which included the philosophy of history, as was the case in the concept of P.Ya. Chaadaev, formulated by him in a philosophical treatise , written in 1829-1831 and later called Philosophical Letters.

In “Philosophical Letters” (1829-1831) and other documents of this period, Chaadaev developed a philosophical concept in many respects similar to that which developed much later among the Slavophiles.

Supporters of Slavophilism (Slavophiles, or Slavophiles) declared that Russia had its own, original path of historical development. The founder of this trend was the writer A.S. Khomyakov, an active role in the movement was played by I.V. Kireevsky, K.S. Aksakov, I.S. Aksakov, Yu.F. Samarin, F.V. Chizhov. At the same time, a certain Evan Romanovsky, a Pole by origin, having learned about the Slavophiles and supporting them, begins to gather around him supporters of this trend throughout Europe. The society he created as a result was called the “European Society for the History of the Origin of Nations,” its members called themselves Slavophiles and considered their main task to abolish the Freemasons and their ideology. Later, the movement of the so-called pochvenniki, or moderate Slavophiles, emerged, the prominent representatives of which were Grigoriev A.A., Strakhov N.N., Danilevsky N.Ya., Leontiev K.N., Dostoevsky F.M. Among the most famous Slavophiles were also Tyutchev F.I., Hilferding A.F., Dal V.I., Yazykov N.M.

Slavophiles, Russian public figures and exponents of the ideas of Holy Rus', played a large role in the development of Russian national consciousness and the formation of a national-patriotic worldview. The Slavophiles proposed the concept of a special path for Russia, established themselves in the idea of ​​the saving role of orthodoxy as a Christian doctrine, and declared the uniqueness of the forms of social development of the Russian people in the form of a community and an artel.

In conditions of reaction and repression against revolutionary ideology, liberal thought received widespread development. In reflections on the historical destinies of Russia, its history, present and future, two most important ideological movements of the 40s were born. XIX century: Westernism and Slavophilism.

Representatives of Westernism were historians T.N. Granovsky, P.N. Kudryavtsev, S.M. Soloviev, lawyer, philosopher and historian B.N. Chicherin, lawyer and philosopher K.D. Kavelin, writers V.P. Botkin, P.V. Annenkov, V.F. Korsh and others. The Westerners were joined by the critic V.G. Belinsky and A.I. Herzen.

Westerners, unlike the Slavophiles, assessed Russian originality as backwardness. From the point of view of Westerners, Russia, like most other Slavic peoples, was, as it were, outside of history for a long time.

They believed that Russia entered the European path - the only one possible for a civilized country - belatedly, only at the beginning of the 18th century, as a result of the reforms of Peter the Great. Naturally, in terms of development it lags significantly behind the advanced countries of Western Europe. The task of modern Russian society, according to Westerners, was to join more closely with the European West and merge with it, forming one universal cultural family. Movement in the “Western direction” should inevitably lead to the same changes in Russian life that these countries experienced in their time - to the replacement of forced, serf labor with free labor and the transformation of a despotic state system into a constitutional one.

According to the Slavophiles, neither Western principles nor Western organizational forms are necessary and unacceptable for Russia. The political ideal of the Slavophiles was a patriarchal monarchy, based on the voluntary support of the people. The “power of opinion” of the people should be expressed in a deliberative zemstvo council, which the tsar should convene following the example of the Moscow tsars.

The disputes between Westerners and Slavophiles... were a paradoxical reflection of the deep internal unity of Westernism and Slavophilism. Herzen pointed out one of the sides of this unity: “Yes, we were their opponents, but very strange. We had the same love, but unequal. And we, like Janus or like a double-headed eagle, looked in different directions, while the heart one beat."

Despite all their ideological differences, Slavophiles and Westerners agreed on a negative attitude towards serfdom and the contemporary bureaucratic police system of government. Both movements demanded freedom of speech and press, and in the eyes of the government, both were “unreliable” (Westerners to a greater extent).

SLAVOPHILES AND WESTERNS. - concept and types. Classification and features of the category "SLAVICOPHILES AND WESTERNS." 2017, 2018.

In the socio-political thought of the second quarter of the 19th century. there were three directions:
1) conservative;
2) liberal-opposition;
3) revolutionary-democratic.

Under Nicholas I Pavlovich (1825–1855), the ideological doctrine of “official nationality” was developed.

The author of this concept was the Minister of Public Education S.S. Uvarov. The theory of “official nationality” proclaimed the following core values:
1) Orthodoxy - was interpreted as the basis of the spiritual life of the Russian people;
2) autocracy - in it the supporters of the theory saw the guarantee and inviolability of the Russian state;
3) nationality - it meant the unity of the king with the people, in which a conflict-free existence of society is possible.

The official doctrine had many supporters. Among them were the great Russian writers A.S. Pushkin (in the 1830s), N.V. Gogol, F.I. Tyutchev. Slavophilism and Westernism In the second quarter of the 19th century. Liberal thinkers, dissatisfied with the state of affairs in the country, made themselves known:
1) Westerners - were supporters of the development of Russia along the Western European path, a constitution, parliamentarism and the development of bourgeois relations. Representatives: N. Granovsky, P.V. Annenkov, B.N. Chicherin and others. P.Ya. is considered an extreme Westerner. Chaadaev, who in his “Philosophical Letter” spoke sharply about the historical past of Russia. He believed that Russia was pushed to stagnation and lag behind Europe by Orthodoxy, which formed a special way of thinking. Granovsky, Soloviev, Kavelin, Chicherin believed that Russia should develop and follow the same historical path as all other Western European countries. They criticized the theory of the Slavophiles about the original path of development of Russia. Westerners were confident that in Russia, over time, Western European orders would be established - political freedoms, a parliamentary system, a market economy. Their political ideal was a constitutional monarchy;
2) Slavophiles - like Westerners, advocated the abolition of serfdom, insisted on a special path for Russia, which they associated with the spirit of collectivism characteristic of the Russian people, especially clearly manifested in the institution of the peasant community. The main representatives of Slavophilism are A.S. Khomyakov, brothers I.V. and P.V. Kireevsky, brothers K.S. and I.S. Aksakovs - advocated an original path of development for Russia, which should not be an exact copy of Western development. They also idealized the country’s traditional patriarchy, communalism, and Orthodoxy. It is these traditions, according to the Slavophiles, that should save Russia from the vices that had already appeared by that time in Western European countries moving along the path of capitalism. Slavophiles did not oppose the monarchical form of government; at the same time, they criticized the despotism that was characteristic of the autocracy of Nicholas I. Slavophiles advocated the abolition of serfdom, the development of domestic industry and trade, freedom of conscience, speech and the press. Identical positions of liberal movements:
1) defense of political freedoms by Westerners and Slavophiles;
2) speaking out against despotism and serfdom;
3) categorical rejection of the revolution.

29.Russian foreign policy in the 1st half of the 19th century. Crimean War 1853–1856 and its consequences.

In 1826-1828 The Russian-Iranian war began, as a result of which Russia annexed Armenia. In 1827 Russia intervened in Greece's struggle for independence against the Turks, which led to the Russo-Turkish War (1828-1829). As a result, the mouth of the Danube and part of Georgia were transferred to Russia.

In 1833, Russia helped Turkey in the war against Egypt and signed the Unkar-Iskelesi Treaty with it, which closed the Black Sea straits to foreign military vessels (except Russians). But in 1841 England, France and Prussia achieved the abolition of this treaty. Russia's isolation gradually increased among European countries, which feared its further strengthening.

In 1848, Nicholas I condemned the revolutions in Europe, and in 1849 he moved the army of I. F. Paskevich to suppress the revolution in Hungary. The Hungarians were defeated and capitulated.

Crimean War 1853-1856 originally fought between the Russian and Ottoman empires for dominance in the Middle East. On the eve of the war, Nicholas I made three irreparable mistakes: regarding England, France and Austria. Nicholas I did not take into account either the great trade and financial interests of the big French bourgeoisie in Turkey, or the benefit for Napoleon III of diverting the attention of the French broad sections of the people from internal affairs to foreign policy.
The first successes of the Russian troops, and especially the defeat of the Turkish fleet in Sinop, prompted England and France to intervene in the war on the side of Ottoman Turkey. In 1855, the Kingdom of Sardinia joined the warring coalition. Sweden and Austria, previously bound by the bonds of the “Holy Alliance” with Russia, were ready to join the allies. Military operations took place in the Baltic Sea, Kamchatka, the Caucasus, and the Danube principalities. The main actions took place in Crimea during the defense of Sevastopol from Allied troops. As a result, through joint efforts, the united coalition was able to win this war.

According to the Peace of Paris in 1856, Russia lost Southern Moldavia and was deprived of the right to have a fleet and fortresses on the Black Sea. Its status as a great power was in doubt. The reason for Russia's failures was the general superiority of its opponents (three countries against one), poor technical equipment of the army, underdeveloped economy, and an insufficiently high level of command. All this exposed its backwardness and stimulated reforms in Russia.

Among the main reasons for Russia's defeat, three groups of factors can be named: political, technical and socio-economic.
The international prestige of the Russian state was undermined. The war was a strong impetus for the aggravation of the social crisis within the country. Contributed to the development of mass peasant uprisings, accelerated the fall of serfdom and the implementation of bourgeois reforms.
The “Crimean System” (the Anglo-Austro-French bloc) created after the Crimean War sought to maintain Russia’s international isolation, so it was first necessary to get out of this isolation. The art of Russian diplomacy (in this case, its Foreign Minister Gorchakov) lay in the fact that it very skillfully used the changing international situation and the contradictions between the participants in the anti-Russian bloc - France, England and Austria.

In the early 30s. XIX century an ideological justification for the reactionary policy of the autocracy was born - theory of “official nationality”. The author of this theory was the Minister of Public Education, Count S. Uvarov. In 1832, in a report to the Tsar, he put forward a formula for the foundations of Russian life: “ Autocracy, Orthodoxy, nationality" It was based on the point of view that autocracy is the historically established foundation of Russian life; Orthodoxy is the moral basis of the life of the Russian people; nationality - the unity of the Russian Tsar and the people, protecting Russia from social cataclysms. The Russian people exist as a single whole only insofar as they remain faithful to the autocracy and submit to the paternal care of the Orthodox Church. Any speech against the autocracy, any criticism of the church was interpreted by him as actions directed against the fundamental interests of the people.

Uvarov argued that education can not only be a source of evil and revolutionary upheavals, as happened in Western Europe, but can turn into a protective element - which is what we should strive for in Russia. Therefore, all “ministers of education in Russia were asked to proceed exclusively from considerations of the official nationality.” Thus, tsarism sought to solve the problem of preserving and strengthening the existing system.

According to the conservatives of the Nicholas era, there were no reasons for revolutionary upheavals in Russia. As the head of the Third Department of His Imperial Majesty’s own office, A.Kh. Benckendorf, “Russia’s past was amazing, its present is more than magnificent, as for its future, it is above everything that the wildest imagination can draw.” In Russia it became almost impossible to fight for socio-economic and political transformations. Attempts by Russian youth to continue the work of the Decembrists were unsuccessful. Student circles of the late 20s - early 30s. were few in number, weak and subject to defeat.

Russian liberals of the 40s. XIX century: Westerners and Slavophiles

In conditions of reaction and repression against revolutionary ideology, liberal thought received widespread development. In reflections on the historical destinies of Russia, its history, present and future, two most important ideological movements of the 40s were born. XIX century: Westernism and Slavophilism. Representatives of the Slavophiles were I.V. Kireevsky, A.S. Khomyakov, Yu.F. Samarin and many others. The most outstanding representatives of Westerners were P.V. Annenkov, V.P. Botkin, A.I. Goncharov, T.N. Granovsky, K.D. Kavelin, M.N. Katkov, V.M. Maikov, P.A. Melgunov, S.M. Soloviev, I.S. Turgenev, P.A. Chaadaev and others. On a number of issues they were joined by A.I. Herzen and V.G. Belinsky.

Both Westerners and Slavophiles were ardent patriots, firmly believed in the great future of their Russia, and sharply criticized Nicholas's Russia.

Slavophiles and Westerners were especially harsh against serfdom. Moreover, Westerners - Herzen, Granovsky and others - emphasized that serfdom was only one of the manifestations of the arbitrariness that permeated all Russian life. After all, the “educated minority” suffered from unlimited despotism and was also in the “fortress” of power, of the autocratic-bureaucratic system. Criticizing Russian reality, Westerners and Slavophiles sharply diverged in their search for ways to develop the country. The Slavophiles, rejecting contemporary Russia, looked at modern Europe with even greater disgust. In their opinion, the Western world has outlived its usefulness and has no future (here we see a certain commonality with the theory of “official nationality”).

Slavophiles defended historical identity Russia and singled it out as a separate world, opposed to the West due to the peculiarities of Russian history, religiosity, and Russian stereotypes of behavior. The Slavophiles considered the Orthodox religion, opposed to rationalistic Catholicism, to be the greatest value. Slavophiles argued that Russians have a special attitude towards the authorities. The people lived, as it were, in a “contract” with the civil system: we are community members, we have our own life, you are the government, you have your own life. K. Aksakov wrote that the country has an advisory voice, the power of public opinion, but the right to make final decisions belongs to the monarch. An example of this kind of relationship can be the relationship between the Zemsky Sobor and the Tsar during the period of the Moscow State, which allowed Russia to live in peace without shocks and revolutionary upheavals, such as the Great French Revolution. Slavophiles associated the “distortions” in Russian history with the activities of Peter the Great, who “cut a window to Europe,” violated the treaty, the balance in the life of the country, and led it astray from the path outlined by God.

Slavophiles are often classified as political reaction due to the fact that their teaching contains three principles of “official nationality”: Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality. However, it should be noted that the Slavophiles of the older generation interpreted these principles in a unique sense: by Orthodoxy they understood a free community of Christian believers, and they viewed the autocratic state as an external form that allows the people to devote themselves to the search for “inner truth.” At the same time, the Slavophiles defended autocracy and did not attach much importance to the cause of political freedom. At the same time they were convinced democrats, supporters of spiritual freedom of the individual. When Alexander II ascended the throne in 1855, K. Aksakov presented him with a “Note on the internal state of Russia.” In the “Note,” Aksakov reproached the government for suppressing moral freedom, which led to the degradation of the nation; he pointed out that extreme measures could only make the idea of ​​political freedom popular among the people and generate a desire to achieve it through revolutionary means. In order to prevent such a danger, Aksakov advised the tsar to grant freedom of thought and speech, as well as to bring back to life the practice of convening Zemsky Sobors. The ideas of providing the people with civil liberties and the abolition of serfdom occupied an important place in the works of the Slavophiles. It is not surprising, therefore, that censorship often subjected them to persecution and prevented them from freely expressing their thoughts.

Westerners, unlike the Slavophiles, Russian originality was assessed as backwardness. From the point of view of Westerners, Russia, like most other Slavic peoples, was, as it were, outside of history for a long time. They saw the main merit of Peter I in the fact that he accelerated the process of transition from backwardness to civilization. Peter's reforms for Westerners are the beginning of Russia's movement into world history.

At the same time, they understood that Peter's reforms were accompanied by many bloody costs. Herzen saw the origins of most of the most disgusting features of contemporary despotism in the bloody violence that accompanied Peter’s reforms. Westerners emphasized that Russia and Western Europe are following the same historical path, so Russia should borrow the experience of Europe. They saw the most important task in achieving the liberation of the individual and creating a state and society that would ensure this freedom. Westerners considered the “educated minority” to be a force capable of becoming the engine of progress.

Despite all the differences in assessing the prospects for Russia's development, Westerners and Slavophiles had similar positions. Both of them opposed serfdom, for the liberation of peasants with land, for the introduction of political freedoms in the country, and the limitation of autocratic power. They were also united by a negative attitude towards the revolution; they performed for the reformist path solutions to the main social issues of Russia. In the process of preparing the peasant reform of 1861, Slavophiles and Westerners entered into a single camp liberalism. The disputes between Westerners and Slavophiles were of great importance for the development of socio-political thought. They were representatives of the liberal-bourgeois ideology that arose among the nobility under the influence of the crisis of the feudal-serf system. Herzen emphasized the commonality that united Westerners and Slavophiles - “a physiological, unaccountable, passionate feeling for the Russian people” (“The Past and Thoughts”).

The liberal ideas of Westerners and Slavophiles took deep roots in Russian society and had a serious influence on subsequent generations of people who were looking for a path to the future for Russia. In disputes about the paths of development of the country, we hear an echo of the dispute between Westerners and Slavophiles on the question of how the special and the universal are correlated in the history of the country, what is Russia - a country destined for the messianic role of the center of Christianity, the third Rome, or a country that is part of of all humanity, part of Europe, following the path of world-historical development.

Revolutionary democratic movement of the 40s - 60s. XIX century

30s - 40s of the 19th century. - the time of the beginning of formation in Russian socio-political life revolutionary democratic ideology. Its founders were V.G. Belinsky and A.I. Herzen.

Illustration 10. V.G. Belinsky. Lithograph by V. Timm based on a drawing by K. Gorbunov. 1843
Illustration 11. A.I. Herzen. Artist A. Zbruev. 1830s

They sharply opposed the theory of “official nationality”, against the views of the Slavophiles, argued for the common historical development of Western Europe and Russia, spoke out for the development of economic and cultural ties with the West, and called for the use of the latest achievements of science, technology, and culture in Russia. However, recognizing the progressiveness of the bourgeois system in comparison with the feudal one, they advocated against the bourgeois development of Russia, replacing feudal exploitation with capitalist one.

Belinsky and Herzen become supporters socialism. After the suppression of the revolutionary movement in 1848, Herzen became disillusioned with Western Europe. At this time, he came to the idea that the Russian village community and artel contained the rudiments of socialism, which would find its realization in Russia sooner than in any other country. Herzen and Belinsky considered the main means of transforming society class struggle And peasant revolution. Herzen was the first in the Russian social movement to embrace the ideas utopian socialism, which became widespread at that time in Western Europe. Herzen's theory Russian communal socialism gave a powerful impetus to the development of socialist thought in Russia.

The ideas of a communal structure of society were further developed in the views of N.G. Chernyshevsky. The son of a priest, Chernyshevsky in many ways anticipated the appearance of commoners in the social movement of Russia. If before the 60s. In the social movement, the main role was played by the noble intelligentsia, then by the 60s. arises in Russia common intelligentsia(raznochintsy - people from various classes: clergy, merchants, philistines, minor officials, etc.).

In the works of Herzen and Chernyshevsky, a program of social transformations in Russia was essentially formed. Chernyshevsky was a supporter of the peasant revolution, the overthrow of the autocracy and the establishment of a republic. It provided for the liberation of peasants from serfdom and the abolition of landownership. The confiscated land was to be transferred to peasant communities for its distribution among the peasants according to justice (equalization principle). The community, in the absence of private ownership of land, periodic redistribution of land, collectivism, and self-government, was supposed to prevent the development of capitalist relations in the countryside and become a socialist unit of society.

In 1863, on charges of writing a leaflet “To the lordly peasants from their well-wishers...” N. G. Chernyshevsky was sentenced to seven years of hard labor and permanent settlement in Siberia. Only towards the end of his life, in 1883, was he released. While in pre-trial detention in the Peter and Paul Fortress, he wrote the famous novel “What is to be done?”, which, due to a censor’s oversight, was published in Sovremennik. More than one generation of Russian revolutionaries was later brought up on the ideas of this novel and the image of the “new man” Rakhmetov.

The program of communal socialism was adopted by the Narodniks, the Socialist Revolutionary Party. A number of provisions of the agrarian program were included by the Bolsheviks in the “Decree on the Land”, adopted by the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets. The ideas of Herzen and Chernyshevsky were perceived differently by their supporters. The radically minded intelligentsia (primarily students) regarded the idea of ​​communal socialism as a call to immediate action, while the more moderate part of it regarded it as a program for gradual advancement.