In the 19th century in Russia, a social movement rich in content and methods of action arose, which largely determined the future fate of the country.
In the first half of the XIX century. The Decembrist movement was of particular historical importance. Their ideas have become the banner of Russian liberalism. Inspired by the progressive ideas of the era, this movement aimed at overthrowing the autocracy and abolishing serfdom. The performance of the Decembrists in 1825 became an example of civic courage and dedication for the youth. Thanks to this, the ideal of citizenship and the ideal of statehood were sharply opposed in the minds of an educated society. The blood of the Decembrists forever divided the intelligentsia and the state in Russia.
There were also serious weaknesses in this movement. The main one is the small number of their ranks. They saw the main support not in the people, but in the army, primarily in the guards. The performance of the Decembrists increased the split between the nobility and the peasantry. The peasantry did not expect anything from the nobles but evil. Throughout the 19th century the peasants linked their hopes for social justice only with the tsar. All the speeches of the nobles, and then the raznochintsy democratic intelligentsia, were perceived by them incorrectly.
Already at the beginning of the century, Russian conservatism was formed as a political trend, the ideologist of which was the famous historian, writer and statesman N. M. Karamzin (1766 - 1826). He wrote that the monarchical form of government most fully corresponds to the existing level of development of morality and enlightenment of mankind. The sole power of the autocrat does not mean arbitrariness. The monarch was obliged to sacredly observe the laws. The estate of society is an eternal and natural phenomenon. The nobles were supposed to "rise" above other classes not only by the nobility of origin, but also by moral perfection, education, and usefulness to society.
The works of N. M. Karamzin also contained certain elements of the theory of official nationality, developed in the 1930s. 19th century Minister of Public Education S. S. Uvarov (1786 - 1855) and historian M. P. Pogodin (1800 - 1875). They preached the thesis of the inviolability of the fundamental foundations of Russian statehood, which included autocracy, Orthodoxy and nationality. This theory, which became the official ideology, was directed against the forces of progress and opposition.
By the end of the 1830s. among the advanced part of Russian society, several integral currents appear that offer their own concepts of the historical development of Russia and programs for its reorganization.
Westerners (T. N. Granovsky, V. P. Botkin, E. F. Korsh, K. D. Kavelin) believed that Russia was following the European path as a result of the reforms of Peter 1. This should inevitably lead to the abolition of serfdom and the transformation of despotic state system into a constitutional one. The authorities and society must prepare and carry out well-thought-out, consistent reforms, with the help of which the gap between Russia and Western Europe will be eliminated.
The radically minded A. I. Herzen, N. P. Ogarev, and V. G. Belinsky in the late 1830s and early 1840s, sharing the main ideas of the Westerners, subjected the bourgeois system to the sharpest criticism. They believed that Russia should not only catch up with the Western European countries, but also take a decisive revolutionary step with them towards a fundamentally new system - socialism.
The opponents of the Westerners were the Slavophiles (A. S. Khomyakov, brothers I. V. and P. V. Kirievsky, brothers K. S. and I. S. Aksakov, Yu. M. Samarin, A. I. Koshelev). In their opinion, the historical path of Russia is fundamentally different from the development of Western European countries. The Western peoples, they noted, live in an atmosphere of individualism, private interests, class hostility, despotism on the blood of built states. At the heart of Russian history was a community, all members of which were connected by common interests. Orthodox Church further strengthened the original ability of the Russian people to sacrifice their interests for the common ones. Government she took care of the Russian people, maintained the necessary order, but did not interfere in the spiritual, private, local life, sensitively listened to the opinion of the people, maintaining contact with them through Zemsky Sobors. Peter 1 destroyed this harmonious structure, introduced serfdom, which divided the Russian people into masters and slaves, the state under him acquired a despotic character. The Slavophils called for the restoration of the old Russian foundations of public state life: to revive the spiritual unity of the Russian people (for which serfdom had to be abolished); to get rid of the despotic nature of the autocratic system, to establish the lost relationship between the state and the people. They hoped to achieve this goal by introducing wide publicity; they also dreamed of the revival of Zemsky Sobors.
Westernizers and Slavophiles, being different currents of Russian liberalism, had heated discussions among themselves and acted in the same direction. The abolition of serfdom and the democratization of the state system - these are the primary tasks, with the solution of which Russia's exit to a new level of development was to begin.
In the middle of the century, the most resolute critics of the authorities were writers and journalists. The ruler of the souls of democratic youth in the 40s. was V. G. Belinsky (1811 - 1848), a literary critic who advocated the ideals of humanism, social justice and equality. In the 50s. The journal Sovremennik became the ideological center of the young democrats, in which N. A. Nekrasov (1821 - 1877), N. G. Chernyshevsky (1828 - 1889), N. A. Dobrolyubov (1836 - 1861) began to play a leading role. Young people gravitated towards the magazine, standing on the positions of a radical renewal of Russia. The ideological leaders of the journal convinced readers of the necessity and inevitability of Russia's rapid transition to socialism, considering the peasant community to be the best form of people's life.
The reformist intentions of the authorities initially met with understanding in Russian society. Journals that stood on different positions - the Western-liberal "Russian Messenger", the Slavophile "Russian conversation" and even the radical "Contemporary" - in 1856-1857. advocated the interaction of all social movements, for the joint support of the aspirations of the government. But as the nature of the impending peasant reform became clearer, the social movement lost its unity. If the liberals, criticizing the government on private issues, continued to support it on the whole, then the publicists of Sovremennik - N. G. Chernyshevsky and N. A. Dobrolyubov - more sharply denounced both the government and the liberals.
A. I. Herzen (1812 - 1870), a brilliantly educated publicist, writer and philosopher, a true "Nineteenth century Voltaire", as he was called in Europe, took a special position. In 1847 he emigrated from Russia to Europe, where he hoped to take part in the struggle for socialist transformations in the most advanced countries. But the events of 1848 dispelled his romantic hopes. He saw that the majority of the people did not support the proletarians heroically fighting on the barricades of Paris. In his publications abroad (the almanac Polar Star and the magazine Kolokol, which were read in the 1950s by all thinking Russia), he exposed the reactionary aspirations of top dignitaries and criticized the government for its indecisiveness. And yet, during these years, Herzen was closer precisely to the liberals than to Sovremennik. He continued to hope for a successful outcome of the reform, followed with sympathy the activities of Alexander II. The authors of Sovremennik, on the other hand, believed that the authorities were incapable of a just reform, and dreamed of an imminent popular revolution.
After the abolition of serfdom, the split in the social movement deepened. The majority of liberals continued to count on the goodwill and reforming possibilities of the autocracy, seeking only to push it in the right direction. At the same time, a significant part of the educated society was captured by revolutionary ideas. This was largely due to major changes in its social composition. It quickly lost its estate-noble character, the boundaries between the estates were destroyed. The children of peasants, petty bourgeois, the clergy, the impoverished nobility quickly lost social ties with the environment that gave birth to them, turning into raznochintsy intellectuals, standing outside the estates, living their own, special life. They sought to change Russian reality as quickly and radically as possible and became the main base of the revolutionary movement in the post-reform period.
The radical public, inspired by N. G. Chernyshevsky, sharply criticized the peasant reform, demanded more decisive and consistent changes, reinforcing these demands with the threat of a popular uprising. The government responded with repression. In 1861 - 1862. many leaders of the revolutionary movement, including Chernyshevsky himself, were sentenced to hard labor. Throughout the 1860s. radicals tried several times to create a strong organization. However, neither the group "Earth and Freedom" (1862 - 1864), nor the circle of N. A. Ishutin (whose member D. V. Karakozov shot at Alexander II in 1866), nor "People's massacre" (1869) could become such. ) under the leadership of S. G. Nechaev.
At the turn of 1860 - 1870. the formation of the ideology of revolutionary populism. It received its final expression in the works of M. Bakunin, P. Lavrov, N. Tkachev. These ideologists pinned special hopes on the peasant community, regarding it as the germ of socialism.
In the late 1860s - early 1870s. a number of populist circles arose in Russia. In the spring of 1874, their members begin a mass campaign among the people, in which thousands of young men and women took part. It covered more than 50 provinces, from the Far North to Transcaucasia and from the Baltic to Siberia. Almost all participants in the walk believed in the revolutionary susceptibility of the peasants and in an imminent uprising: the Lavrists (propaganda direction) were waiting for it in 2-3 years, and the Bakuninists (rebellious direction) - “in spring” or “in autumn”. However, it was not possible to raise the peasants to the revolution. The revolutionaries were forced to reconsider their tactics and move on to more systematic propaganda in the countryside. In 1876, the Land and Freedom organization arose, the main goal of which was declared to be the preparation of a popular socialist revolution. The populists sought to create strongholds in the countryside for an organized uprising. However, "sedentary" activity did not bring any serious results either. In 1879, Zemlya i Volya split into Black Repartition and Narodnaya Volya. The "Black Repartition", whose leader was G. V. Plekhanov (1856 - 1918), remained in the old positions. The activities of this organization proved fruitless. In 1880 Plekhanov was forced to go abroad. "Narodnaya Volya" brought the political struggle to the forefront, seeking to achieve the overthrow of the autocracy. The tactics of seizing power, chosen by the Narodnaya Volya, consisted in intimidation and disorganization of power through individual terror. Gradually, an uprising was being prepared. No longer relying on the peasants, the Narodnaya Volya tried to organize students and workers and infiltrate the army. Since the autumn of 1879, they launched a real hunt for the king, which ended with the assassination of Alexander II on March 1, 1881.
In the 60s. the process of formalizing Russian liberalism as an independent social trend begins. Well-known lawyers B. N. Chicherin (1828 - 1907), K. D. Kavelin (1817 - 1885) reproached the government for the haste of reforms, wrote about the psychological unpreparedness of some sections of the population for changes, advocated a calm, without shocks "growing" of society into new forms of life. They fought both conservatives and radicals who called for popular revenge on the oppressors. At this time, Zemstvo bodies, new newspapers and magazines, university professors became their socio-political base. In the 70-80s. liberals are increasingly coming to the conclusion that deep political reforms are needed.
At the end of the XIX century. the liberal movement was slowly on the rise. During these years, ties between zemstvos were established and strengthened, meetings of zemstvo leaders took place, plans were developed. The liberals considered the introduction of a constitution, representative institutions, glasnost and civil rights to be a transformation of paramount importance for Russia. On this platform, in 1904, the organization "Union of Liberation" arose, uniting the liberal Zemstvo and the intelligentsia. Speaking in favor of the constitution, the Union also put forward in its program some moderate socio-economic demands, primarily on the peasant question: the alienation of part of the landed estates for redemption, the liquidation of cuts, etc. characteristic feature liberal movement was still a rejection of revolutionary methods of struggle. The socio-political base of the liberals is expanding. The zemstvo and city intelligentsia, scientific and educational societies are becoming more and more actively involved in their movement. In terms of numbers and activity, the liberal camp is no longer inferior to the conservative one, although it is not equal to the radical democratic one.
Populism is undergoing a crisis in these years. The liberal wing, whose representatives (N. K. Mikhailovsky, S. N. Krivenko, V. P. Vorontsov, and others) hoped to embody Narodnik ideals in life by peaceful means, was significantly strengthened in it. In the environment of liberal populism, the "theory of small deeds" arose. She directed the intelligentsia to the daily work of improving the condition of the peasants.
The liberal populists differed from the liberals primarily in that socio-economic transformations were of paramount importance for them. They considered the struggle for political freedoms to be secondary. The revolutionary wing of populism, weakened by the repressions of the authorities, managed to intensify its activity only at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. In 1901, a party of socialist revolutionaries (Socialist-Revolutionaries) arose, who in their program tried to embody the ideals of revolutionary populism. They retained the thesis of the peasant community as the germ of socialism. The interests of the peasantry, the Socialist-Revolutionaries asserted, are identical with the interests of the workers and the working intelligentsia. All this is the "working people", the vanguard of which they considered their party. In the coming socialist revolution, the main role was assigned to the peasantry. On the agrarian question, they advocated the "socialization of the land", that is, the abolition of private ownership of it and the equal distribution of land among all who want to cultivate it. The Social Revolutionaries advocated the overthrow of the autocracy and the convening of the Constituent Assembly, which would determine the nature of the state system in Russia. Along with broad agitation among the peasants and workers, they considered individual terror to be the most important means of revolutionary struggle.
In 1870 - 1880. the Russian labor movement is also gaining strength. And in St. Petersburg and Odessa, the first organizations of the proletariat arose - the Northern Union of Russian Workers and the South Russian Union of Workers. They were relatively few in number and were influenced by populist ideas. Already in the 80s. the labor movement has expanded significantly, and elements of what did at the beginning of the 20th century appear in it. labor movement one of the most important political factors in the life of the country. The largest strike in the post-reform years, the Morozov strike (1885), confirmed this position.
The ignorance of the needs of the working class by the authorities has led to the fact that supporters of Marxism rush into the working environment and find support there. They see the main revolutionary force in the proletariat. In 1883, the Emancipation of Labor group, headed by Plekhanov, appeared in exile in Geneva. Having switched to Marxist positions, he abandoned many provisions of the populist doctrine. He believed that Russia had already irrevocably embarked on the path of capitalism. The peasant community is increasingly split into rich and poor, and therefore cannot be the basis for building socialism. Criticizing the Narodniks, Plekhanov argued that the struggle for socialism included the struggle for political freedoms and a constitution. The leading force in this struggle will be the industrial proletariat. Plekhanov noted that there must be a more or less long interval between the overthrow of the autocracy and the socialist revolution. Forcing the socialist revolution can lead, in his opinion, to the establishment of "renewed tsarist despotism on a communist lining."
The group saw its main task in promoting Marxism in Russia and in rallying forces to create a workers' party. With the advent of this group, Marxism in Russia took shape as an ideological trend. It ousted Narodism and, in a sharp struggle against it, inherited many of its features.
In the 80s. Marxist circles of Blagoev, Tochissky, Brusnev, Fedoseev appeared in Russia, spreading Marxist views among the intelligentsia and workers. In 1895, the "Union of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class" was formed in St. Petersburg, headed by V. I. Lenin. Following his model, similar organizations are being created in other cities. In 1898, on their initiative, the First Congress of the RSDLP was held in Minsk, announcing the creation of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party. But in fact the party was created only in 1903 at the Second Congress. At it, after heated debate, the program of the RSDLP was adopted. It consisted of two parts. The minimum program determined the immediate tasks of the party: the overthrow of the autocracy and the establishment of a democratic republic, an 8-hour working day, the return of cuts to the peasants and the abolition of redemption payments, etc. This part of the program was in no way more revolutionary than the Social Revolutionary, but in the agrarian question was closer to the liberal. The maximum program set as the goal the implementation of the socialist revolution and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. These demands put the RSDLP in a special position, turning it into an extreme, extremist organization. Such a goal ruled out concessions and compromises, cooperation with representatives of other social and political forces. The adoption of the maximum program at the congress and the results of the elections to the central bodies of the party marked the victory of the radical wing of the RSDLP - the Bolsheviks, headed by V. I. Lenin. Their opponents, who after this congress received the name Mensheviks, insisted that the party proceed in its activities only from the minimum program. The Bolsheviks and Mensheviks became two independent currents in the RSDLP. They moved away, then approached, but never completely merged. In fact, these were two parties that differed significantly in ideological and organizational issues. The Mensheviks relied primarily on the experience of the Western European socialist parties. The Bolshevik Party, on the other hand, was built on the model of the People's Will and was aimed at seizing power.
As for the conservative camp, in the post-reform period it is experiencing ideological confusion caused by a huge complex of the most complex economic and social problems faced by Russia in these years.
The talented journalist M. N. Katkov called in his articles for the establishment of a "strong hand" regime in the country. K. P. Pobedonostsev strongly warned the Russians against the introduction of a constitutional order. He considered the idea of representation to be false in essence, since not the people, but only its representatives (and not the most honest, but only clever and ambitious) participate in political life. Correctly noting the shortcomings of the representative system and parliamentarism, he did not want to recognize their enormous advantages. Conservatives critical of Russian reality, including the activities of jury trials, zemstvos, the press (which were by no means ideal) demanded that the tsar appoint honest officials to leading positions, demanded that the peasants be given only an elementary education, strictly religious in content, demanded mercilessly punish dissent. They avoided discussing such issues as the shortage of land of the peasants, the arbitrariness of entrepreneurs, the low standard of living of a huge part of the people. Their ideas reflected, in fact, the powerlessness of the conservatives in the face of the formidable problems that confronted society at the end of the 19th century. At the same time, by the end of the century, there were already quite a few ideologists among them who sharply criticized government policy for being ineffective and even reactionary.
Questions for self-control
1. What were the features of the socio-economic and political development of Russia in the first half of the 19th century?
2. What were the reasons for the reforms in the 60s - early 70s. 19th century?
3. What changes have occurred in the position of the nobility and peasantry as a result of the abolition of serfdom?
4. What are the consequences and significance of the bourgeois reforms for Russia?
5. What impact did the counter-reforms of Alexander III have on the development of the country?
6. Russian and Western liberalism: general and special.
7. Historical fate of populism in Russia.
Literature
Great reforms in Russia. 1856 - 1874 - M., 1992.
Mironenko S.V. Autocracy and reforms. Political struggle in Russia at the beginning of the 19th century. - M., 1989.
Mironov B. N. Social history of Russia in the period of the empire (XVIII - early XX century). T. 1 - 2. - St. Petersburg, 2000.
National history: Anthology. - Kirov, 2003.
Pirumova N.M. Zemskaya intelligentsia and its role in social struggle before the beginning of the 20th century. - M., 1986.
Russian autocrats. - M., 1992.
Semennikova L. I. Russia in the world community of civilizations. - Bryansk, 2002.
Solovieva A.M. industrial revolution in Russia XIX V. - M., 1990.
Tarle E.V. Napoleon's invasion of Russia. - M., 1992.
Tomsinov V.A. The luminary of the Russian bureaucracy. Historical portrait of M.M. Speransky. - M., 1991.
Troitsky I.M. III branch under Nicholas I. - L., 1990.
Troitsky N.A. Russia in the 19th century. Lecture course. - M., 1999.
Fedorov V.A. Decembrists and their time. - M., 1997.
Westerners - a liberal ideological trend of the 1840s - early 1860s in Russia.
Na-cha-lo for-mi-ro-vat-sya in 1839, when the Moscow circle of T.N. Gra-nov-sko-th. P.V. An-nen-kov, V.P. Botkin, K.D. Ka-ve-lin, M.N. Kat-kov, P.N. Kudryav-tsev, N.Kh. Ket-cher, E.F. Korsh, N.F. Pavlov, B.N. Chi-che-rin. At this time, the views of Westerners once de la V.G. Belinsky, A.I. Ger-tsen, N.P. Oga-roar, P.Ya. Chaa-da-ev. To the Westerners would be close to I.A. Gon-char-ditch, S.M. So-lov-yov, I.S. Turgenev, M.E. Sal-you-kov-Shched-rin. After the death of Gra-nov-sko-go (1855), Moscow Westerners (Bot-kin, Ket-cher, E.F. Ko-ni, Korsh, So-lov-yov, Chi-che-rin) -e-di-ni-lis around pi-sa-te-la A.V. Stan-ke-wee-cha. In St. Peterburg, at the end of the 1840s, a second group of Westerners formed, consisting of a hundred young chi-news no-kov led by N.A. Mi-lu-ti-nym and D.A. Mi-lu-ti-nym. Later, they are lu-chi-whether known as “part-tia of pro-gres-sa”, or “li-be-ral-nye by-ro-kra-you”. Another circle of Westerners formed in the early 1850s around the re-hav-she-go in St. Petersburg K. D. Ka-ve-li-na. Many Westerners would-we-we-we-profess-so-ra-mi and public-li-qi-hundred-mi, an hour you-stup-pa-whether with lectures and in pe-cha-ti, that can-so-st-in-va-lo races-pro-country-non-ing of their ideas. You-ra-zi-te-la-mi to me-of Westerners would be the journal-on-ly “Mo-s-kov-sky on-blu-da-tel” (1835-1839), “Father-che- st. kov-sky ve-do-mo-sti "(1851-1856).
Ter-mi-ny “for-pad-no-ki” and “for-pad-no-che-st-vo” rise-nick-whether in the course of the Westerners from the glory but-fi-la-mi and first-at-first-but sa-mi-mi Westerners were perceived as insulting poly-tic nicknames (in disputes 1840 1990s, they also used the same pro-names “for-western”, “eu-ro-pei-sty” and “but-in-ve-ry”).
In the political sphere, Westerners would be parties-no-ka-mi of freedom of co-weight, public opinion and pe-cha-ti, as well as public-personal-no-sti of government actions and publicity-no-sti su-do-pro-from-water-st-va. In relation to the application to the application of the re-in-revolutionary on-force for changing the su-sche-st-in-vav-she-th system of the first at first, among Westerners on-me-ti-moose, there are two-right-le-niya - ra-di-kal-noe (in is-to-rio-graphics, sometimes they have well-et-sya re-in-lu-qi-on-no-de-mo-kra-ti-che-skim), to-pus-kav-neck use-pol-zo-va-nie on-si- liya, and moderate, for someone-ro-go it would be ha-rak-ter-but from-ri-tsa-nie violent ways of fighting against power and striving for a step-by-step-no-mu pre-ob-ra-zo-va-niyu society. To the first-to-right-le-niyu tra-di-qi-on-but from-no-syat V.G. Be-lin-sko-go, A.I. Ger-tse-on and N.P. Oga-ryo-va, one-to-one their zi-tion would not always be-la after-to-va-tel-but ra-di-kal-noy. To the second-ro-mu-to-right-le-niyu-over-le-zha-lo pain-shin-st-in Westerners. The gap between Ger-tsen-na and the Westerners (1845) and the death of Be-lin-sko-go (1848) are late-cha-tel-but op-re-de-li-whether the essence of the ideological in-zi-tion for-pad-no-che-st-wa how moderate-ren-but whether-be-ral-no-th-th-che-niya. The pain-shin-st-in-the-Westerners would be mo-nar-hi-sta-mi, consider-ta-whether it is possible to os-shche-st-in-le-ne-on-mature-re-forms sa-mim go-su-dar-st-vom.
Westerners, as well as slav-vya-no-fi-ly, did not have their own or-ga-ni-za-tion. Until 1845, when there was a conflict between two te-che-niya-mi, leading to a raz-ry-vu from-but-she-me -zh-du ni-mi, Westerners and glo-vya-no-fi-ly vos-pri-ni-ma-li se-bya as a single “ob-ra-zo-van-noe less-shin-st -in", striving to awaken the society from the "mind-st-vein-noy apathy". One-to-the world-ro-vision of the Westerners sharply from-whether-cha-moose from "sa-mo-life-no-che-st-va" s-va-no-fi-lov , as well as from the state-under-stvo-vav-shey "ofi-qi-al-noy on-rod-no-sti" theory. The basis of the world-view of the Westerners would be the ideas of the European Enlightenment and the German class-si-che-philosophy, recognition of the ve-du-ro-whether ra-zu-ma in knowledge, not-about-ho-di-mo-sti of philosophical os-thinking in practical os-voe-nii ok-ru-zhayu-schey dey-st-vi-tel-no-sti. Westerners believed that the mind allowed to know the world (including social relations) as a system of cause-and-cause st-ven-ny connections, in some-swarm dey-st-woo-yut-know-we-we (ho-tya, sometimes not yet known) for-to-us, the same for all living and non-living nature. The pain-shin-st-in of the Westerners was attached to the atheistic ubi-de-nii.
Westerners would be against-no-ka-mi kre-by-st-no-go right. They do-ka-zy-va-li pre-imu-sche-st-va of the Western European mo-de-li-public device-swarm-st-va, however, they are resurrecting-with-no-ma- they were used only as an orientation of development, and not an object of a next sub-ra-zha-niya. From-a-flock-wa-whether li-be-ral-ny values-no-sti, pre-zh-de everything is not-for-vi-si-bridge of personality. From the point of view of the Westerners, it could be right that there was such a society, in which we created all the conditions for su -sche-st-in-va-nia and sa-mo-rea-li-for-tion of personality. In this way, they are from-ver-ga-whether ha-rak-ter-nye for the traditional society of the idea of pat-ri-ar-khal-no-go-one-st-va in- me-shchi-kov and kre-st-yan, as well as pa-ter-na-liz-ma of power according to from-no-she-niyu to under-data.
In the field of eco-no-mi-ki, Westerners considered that the state-su-dar-st-vo, with minimal interference in the development of pro-mice -len-no-sti, trade-gov-whether and trans-port-that should provide-ne-chi-va-vat non-attack-but-vein-ness of own-st-ven-no-sti.
In the center of the is-to-rio-sophic representations of the Westerners, on-ho-di-elk, the understanding of the historical progress, which they present becoming-la-whether as a chain of not-about-ra-ti-my, ka-che-st-ven-nyh from me-not-ny of individual people and general-st-va in in general, from worst to best. In this way, Westerners considered Peter I to be one of the main figures of Russian history, someone who turned the movement of the country along the path of pro-gres-sa to the “great-vi-tel-st-ven-ny sys-te-mu”. Ideas for-pad-no-th-st-wa found you-ra-same in the creation of K.D. Ka-ve-li-nym, S.M. So-lov-yo-vym and B.N. Chi-che-ri-nym in the 1840-1850s on the right-le-nii of historical science, later on, better-chiv-shem, the name “go-su-dar-st- vein school. Its essence lies in the statement of the or-ga-nich-no-sti and for-ko-no-mer-no-sti of Russian history, one-st-va historical development of Russia and Za-pa-da with the preservation of Russian national features-ben-no-stay (greater than in Za-pa-de, the role go-su-dar-st-va, some-paradise ve-la to for-si-leu by-ro-kra-tii and weak-bo-development of public ini-tsia-ti -you), in the con-sta-ta-tion of the fact that the os-no-howl from-no-she-niya go-su-dar-st-va to the general-st-vu was pa-ter -on-lizm. According to Westerners, the Russian state-su-dar-st-vo in the form of sa-mo-der-zha-via you-ra-zha-lo is all-general in-te-re-sy, and in this way, names, but it is under the influence of public opinion, the development of enlightenment and science, but it should have become ini -tsia-to-rum and gar-ran-tom whether-to-vi-da-tion co-words-no-go an-ta-go-niz-ma in Russia and under-go-tov-ki on -ro-da (“not-raz-viv-shey-sya part of che-lo-ve-che-st-va”) to political freedoms-bo-ladies. This allows many modern studies-to-va-te-lyam op-re-de-lyat Westerners as li-be-ral-but-con-ser-va-tiv-noe ideological flow.
In the 1840s, the pa-fos you-stu-p-le-niy of the Westerners was on-the-right-len to ut-ver-wait-ing the pre-sun-walk-st-va Za-pa-da, in 1850- th years, they, like s-vya-no-fi-ly, co-medium-to-that-chi-were on thoughts-le-ni-yah about ways and ways to raz-re -she-niya of problems, hundred-yav-shih before Ros-si-her. At the end of the Crimean War of 1853-1856, which was not successful for Russia, some Westerners on-pi-sa-whether better-chiv-shie shi-ro-kuyu from-news-for-pis-ki, in some-ryh con-sta-ti-ro-va-li on-ripening in Russia crisis, oh-va-tiv-shiy all one hundred -ro-ny of life-no common-st-va, and pre-la-ha-whether the plan is not-about-ho-di-my pre-ob-ra-zo-va-ny for you-ho-yes out of him. In the first of such for-pi-juice (1855) B.N. Chi-che-rin sub-subjected to the cri-ti-ke external-li-ti-ku with the end-chav-she-go-xia of Emperor Ni-ko-lai I (ko-to-paradise, according to me-niyu Chi-che-ri-na, but-si-la ex-pan-Sio-ni-st-sky ha-rak-ter and brought-ve-la to the war-not), in a close mutually -mo-connection of military non-successes with "internal-ren-him not-dev-swarm-st-vom of go-su-dar-st-va." K.D. Ka-ve-lin in his-her-pis-ke, also on-pi-san-noy in 1855, saw the main pri-chi-well from-hundred-lo-sti of the country in the cr - in the st-nom right-ve, ot-marked his pa-lip-noe effect on the moral-st-ven-noe state of society and co -qi-al-nuyu stability, on-stay-shaft on not-about-ho-di-mo-sti os-in-bo-g-de-niya kre-st-yang with the earth and for “rising-on-gra-zh-de-nie vlad-del-tsam” (this principle formed the basis of the kre-st-yan-sky reform of 1861).
Due to the fact that the main goal of the Westerners is from-me-on the cre-on-st-no-th-pra-va - would-la rea-li-zo-va-on pra-vi-tel-st- Vom, circles of Westerners dispersed in the early 1860s, one-on-one Westerners (K.D. Ka-ve-lin, B.N. Chi-che- rin) continue to play a prominent role in public life. Ter-min "Westerners" in a degree-pen-but lost-ra-til concreteness, it began to be used with-me-ni-tel-but to li-be-ral-but on-stro-en-noy part-ty in-tel-li-gen-tion.
ENLIGHTENMENT (ideological current)
ENLIGHTENMENT, an ideological trend of the 17th - 18th centuries, based on the belief in the decisive role of reason (cm. INTELLIGENCE) and science (cm. SCIENCE (field of activity)) in the knowledge of the "natural order" corresponding to the true nature of man and society. Ignorance, obscurantism, religious fanaticism (cm. Ombudsman for Human Rights) enlighteners considered the causes of human disasters; opposed the feudal-absolutist regime, for political freedom, civil equality. The main representatives of the Enlightenment in England (where it arose) - J. Locke (cm. Locke John), J. A. Collins, J. Toland (cm. TOLAND John), A. E. Shaftesbury (cm. SHAFTESBURY Anthony Ashley Cooper); in France (the period of the greatest spread of the Enlightenment here, between 1715 and 1789, is called the "age of Enlightenment") - Voltaire (cm. VOLTAIRE), C. Montesquieu (cm. Montesquieu Charles Louis), J. J. Rousseau (cm. RUSSO Jean Jacques), D. Diderot (cm. DIDRO Denis), K. A. Helvetius (cm. HELVETIUS Claude Adrian), P. A. Golbach (cm. HOLBACH); in Germany - G. E. Lessing (cm. LESSING Gotthold Ephraim), I. G. Herder (cm. HERDER Johann Gottfried), F. Schiller (cm. SCHILLER Friedrich), I. W. Goethe (cm. Goethe Johann Wolfgang); in the USA - T. Jefferson (cm. JEFFERSON Thomas), B. Franklin (cm. FRANKLIN Benjamin), T. Payne (cm. Payne Thomas); in Russia - N. I. Novikov (cm. NOVIKOV Nikolay Ivanovich), A. N. Radishchev (cm. RADISHCHEV Alexander Nikolaevich)). The ideas of the Enlightenment had a significant impact on the development of social thought. However, in the 19th and 20th centuries The ideology of the Enlightenment was often criticized for idealizing (cm. IDEALIZATION) human nature, an optimistic interpretation of progress as the steady development of society based on the improvement of the mind. IN broad sense Enlighteners were called outstanding disseminators of scientific knowledge.
* * *
ENLIGHTENMENT, a broad cultural movement in Europe and North America at the end of the 17th and 18th centuries, aimed at spreading ideals scientific knowledge, political freedoms, social progress (cm. PROGRESS (direction of development)) and exposing relevant prejudices (cm. PREJUDICE) and superstition (cm. SUPERSTITION). The centers of the ideology and philosophy of the Enlightenment were France, England and Germany. The ideology of the Enlightenment received its concentrated expression in France during the period from 1715 to 1789, called the Age of Enlightenment (siecle des lumieres). Kant's definition of the Enlightenment as "the courage to use one's own mind" speaks of the fundamental orientation of the Enlightenment to endow the mind with the status of the highest authority and the associated ethical responsibility of its bearers - enlightened citizens.
Basic ideas and principles of the Enlightenment
Despite all the national peculiarities, the Enlightenment had several common ideas and principles. There is a single order of nature, on the knowledge of which not only the success of the sciences and the well-being of society, but also moral and religious perfection are based; the correct reproduction of the laws of nature allows you to build a natural morality (cm. MORAL), natural religion (cm. RELIGION) and natural law (cm. LAW (system of norms)). Reason freed from prejudice is the only source of knowledge; facts are the only material for reason. Rational knowledge must free humanity from social and natural slavery; society and the state must harmonize with the external nature and nature of man. Theoretical knowledge is inseparable from practical action that ensures progress as the highest goal of social existence.
The specific ways of implementing this program within the framework of the Enlightenment diverged significantly. The difference in opinions about religion was especially significant: La Mettrie's practical atheism (cm. ATHEISM), Holbach (cm. HOLBACH), Helvetia (cm. HELVETIUS Claude Adrian) and Diderot (cm. DIDRO Denis), the rationalist anti-clerical deism of Voltaire (cm. DEISM), moderate deism D "Alembert (cm. d'Alembert Jean Leron), the pious deism of Condillac (cm. CONDILLAC Etienne Bonnot de), Rousseau's emotional "deism of the heart" (cm. RUSSO Jean Jacques). The unifying moment was the hatred of the traditional church (cm. CHURCH). At the same time, however, the deism of the Enlightenment did not exclude such organizational forms as the Masonic quasi-church (cm. FREEMASONRY) with her rituals. Epistemological differences were less diverse: in general, the enlighteners adhered to Lockean empiricism with an emphatically sensationalist interpretation of the origin of knowledge. Sensationalism (cm. SENSATIONALISM) could be mechanical-materialistic in nature (Helvetius, Holbach, Diderot), but skeptical and even spiritualistic (cm. SPIRITUALISM) variant (Condillac (cm. CONDILLAC Etienne Bonnot de)). Ontology (cm. ONTOLOGY) Enlighteners were less interested in: they left the solution of these problems to specific sciences (in this respect, the philosophy of the Enlightenment can be considered the first version of positivism), fixing only the evidence of the existence of the subject, nature, and God the root cause. Only in Holbach's "System of Nature" is a dogmatic picture of atomistic-material being given. In the social sphere, the enlighteners tried to substantiate the theory of progress and connect it with the stages of the economic and political development of society (Turgot (cm. Turgot Anne Robert Jacques), Condorcet (cm. CONDORCE Jean Antoine Nicolas)). Economic (Turgot), political (Montesquieu (cm. Montesquieu Charles Louis)), human rights (Voltaire) ideas of the Enlightenment played a significant role in the formation of the liberal civilization of the modern West.
Enlightenment in France
national schools Enlightenment had its own characteristics. The philosophy of the French Enlightenment is distinguished by its radical social and anti-clerical orientation. It is characterized by a brilliant literary form, in some cases giving literary and journalistic masterpieces (Didero, Voltaire, Rousseau). For all their keen interest in social and historical issues, the French Enlightenment did not create a general philosophy of history, dissolving the specifics of the historical in nature with its power of chance and in the arbitrariness of human will. The color of the French Enlightenment united the editions of the Encyclopedia (1751-1780), headed by Diderot and D "Alembert. "Encyclopedia (cm. ENCYCLOPEDIA (French))"became a kind of emblematic act of the enlighteners, since it combined the functions of propaganda (cm. PROPAGANDA) science, education of citizens, glorification of creative work, association of authors in the "party" of enlighteners, effective practical enterprise and "useful" aesthetics (cm. AESTHETICS) embodied in magnificent engravings. In the program articles (“Introductory Discourse”, “Encyclopedia”), “good” philosophy was tasked with “embracing with a single glance the objects of speculation and the operations that can be performed on these objects” and draw conclusions “based on facts or generally accepted truths”.
English and German Enlightenment
The English Enlightenment focused on the problems of the utilitarian (cm. FEDERALIZATION) morality (Shaftesbury (cm. SHAFTESBURY Anthony Ashley Cooper), Hutcheson (cm. Hutcheson Francis), Gartley (cm. HARTLEY David), Mandeville (cm. MANDEVILLE Bernard)) and sensationalist aesthetics (cm. AESTHETICS)(Hom, Burke (cm. Burke Edmund), Shaftesbury (cm. SHAFTESBURY Anthony Ashley Cooper), Hutcheson (cm. Hutcheson Francis)). In epistemology, the Scottish school of "common sense" is original. English deism is more concerned with the problem of religious tolerance and free thought than with theological problems (Toland (cm. TOLAND John), S. Clark (cm. CLARK Samuel), A. Collins (cm. COLLINS Anthony)).
The German Enlightenment is more metaphysical and smoothly grows out of the traditions of classical rationalism of the 17th century. (Chirnhaus, Pufendorf (cm. PUFENDORF Samuel), Thomasius (cm. THOMASIUS Christian), Wolf (cm. WOLF Christian), Crusius, Tetens (cm. TETENS Johann Nicholas)). Later German Enlightenment was carried away by religious disputes (under the influence of the pietistic ferment) about religious tolerance, pantheism (cm. PANTHEISM), the relationship between the rights of the state and the church (Reimarus, Mendelssohn (cm. MENDELSON Moses), Lessing (cm. LESSING Gotthold Ephraim), Herder (cm. HERDER Johann Gottfried)). Baumgarten (cm. BAUMGARTEN Alexander Gottlieb) and Lessing (cm. LESSING Gotthold Ephraim) make a significant contribution to aesthetics. Herder is one of the first creators of the principle of historicism (cm. HISTORICISM)- creates an extensive picture of the evolution of nature from inorganic matter to the highest forms of human culture.
The crisis of the European Enlightenment becomes noticeable in such pre-romantic phenomena as the apology of the emotional and folk element in the late Rousseau, the German literary and philosophical movement "Storm and Onslaught (cm. STURM UND DRANG)"with his aggressive voluntarism, the intuitionism of the mature Goethe (cm. Goethe Johann Wolfgang), Hamann's anti-Enlightenment attacks (cm. Hamann Johann Georg) and F. Jacobi (cm. JACOBI Friedrich Heinrich), the visionary mysticism of Swedenborg (cm. SWEDENBORG Emanuel).
The ideological legacy of the Enlightenment
The historical border of the European Enlightenment is the 1780-1790s. During the English Industrial Revolution (cm. INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION) publicists and ideologists were replaced by engineers and entrepreneurs. Great French revolution (cm. THE FRENCH REVOLUTION) destroyed the historical optimism of the Enlightenment. The German literary and philosophical revolution redefined the status of reason.
The intellectual legacy of the Enlightenment was more of an ideology than a philosophy, and so it is rapidly being superseded by German classical philosophy and romanticism, receiving from them the epithet of "flat rationalism." However, the Enlightenment finds allies in the positivists of the 2nd half of the 19th century and acquires a "second wind" in the 20th century, sometimes perceived as an alternative and antidote in the fight against totalitarianism. So, enlightenment motives sound, for example, in the works of Husserl (cm. Husserl Edmund), M. Weber (cm. WEBER Max), Russell ( cm.
// Encyclopedia Cyril \ Methodius
http://www.megabook.ru/Article.asp?AID=664959
ENLIGHTENMENT, a broad cultural movement in Europe and North America at the end of the 17th and 18th centuries, which aimed to spread the ideals of scientific knowledge, political freedoms, social progress and expose the corresponding prejudices and superstitions.
The centers of the ideology and philosophy of the Enlightenment were France, England and Germany. The ideology of the Enlightenment received its concentrated expression in France during the period from 1715 to 1789, called the Age of Enlightenment (siecle des lumieres).
Kant's definition of the Enlightenment as "the courage to use one's own mind" speaks of the fundamental orientation of the Enlightenment to endow the mind with the status of the highest authority and the associated ethical responsibility of its bearers - enlightened citizens.
The main representatives of the Enlightenment in England (where it originated) are J. Locke, J. A. Collins, J. Toland, A. E. Shaftesbury; in France (the period of the greatest spread of the Enlightenment here, between 1715 and 1789, is called the "age of Enlightenment") - Voltaire, Ch. Montesquieu, J. J. Rousseau, D. Diderot, K. A. Helvetius, P. A. Holbach; in Germany - G. E. Lessing, J. G. Herder, F. Schiller, J. W. Goethe; in the USA - T. Jefferson, B. Franklin, T. Payne; in Russia - N. I. Novikov, A. N. Radishchev).
The ideas of the Enlightenment had a significant impact on the development of social thought. However, in the 19th and 20th centuries the ideology of the Enlightenment was often criticized for idealizing human nature, an optimistic interpretation of progress as the steady development of society based on the improvement of the mind. In a broad sense, educators were called outstanding disseminators of scientific knowledge.
Basic ideas and principles of the Enlightenment
Despite all the national peculiarities, the Enlightenment had several common ideas and principles. There is a single order of nature, on the knowledge of which not only the success of the sciences and the well-being of society, but also moral and religious perfection are based; the correct reproduction of the laws of nature makes it possible to build natural morality, natural religion, and natural law. Reason freed from prejudice is the only source of knowledge; facts are the only material for reason. Rational knowledge must free humanity from social and natural slavery; society and the state must harmonize with the external nature and nature of man. Theoretical knowledge is inseparable from practical action that ensures progress as the highest goal of social existence.
The specific ways of implementing this program within the framework of the Enlightenment diverged significantly.. It was especially significant difference in opinions about religion: the practical atheism of La Mettrie, Holbach, Helvetius and Diderot, the rationalistic anti-clerical deism of Voltaire, the moderate deism of D "Alembert, the pious deism of Condillac, the emotional "deism of the heart" of Rousseau. such organizational forms as the Masonic quasi-church with its rituals.Gnoseological differences were less diverse: in general, the enlighteners adhered to Lockean empiricism with an emphatically sensationalist interpretation of the origin of knowledge. the skeptical and even spiritualistic option was excluded (Condillac).Ontology was of less interest to the Enlighteners: they provided the solution of these problems to specific sciences (in this respect, the philosophy of the Enlightenment can be considered the first version of positivism), fixing only the evidence of the existence of the subject, nature, and God-prime cause. Only in Holbach's "System of Nature" is a dogmatic picture of atomistic-material being given. In the social sphere, the enlighteners tried to substantiate the theory of progress and connect it with the stages of the economic and political development of society (Turgot, Condorcet). Economic (Turgot), political (Montesquieu), human rights (Voltaire) ideas of the Enlightenment played a significant role in the formation of the liberal civilization of the modern West.
National schools of the Enlightenment had their own characteristics
Enlightenment in France
The philosophy of the French Enlightenment is distinguished by its radical social and anti-clerical orientation. It is characterized by a brilliant literary form, in some cases giving literary and journalistic masterpieces (Didero, Voltaire, Rousseau). For all their keen interest in social and historical issues, the French Enlightenment did not create a general philosophy of history, dissolving the specifics of the historical in nature with its power of chance and in the arbitrariness of human will. The color of the French Enlightenment was united by the editions of the Encyclopedia (1751-1780), headed by Diderot and D "Alembert. The Encyclopedia became a kind of emblematic act of the enlighteners, since it combined the functions of promoting science, educating citizens, glorifying creative work, uniting authors in " party" of enlighteners, an effective practical enterprise and "useful" aesthetics, embodied in magnificent engravings. In the program articles ("Introductory Reasoning", "Encyclopedia"), the "good" philosophy was tasked with "embracing with a single glance the objects of speculation and operations that can be perform on these objects" and draw conclusions "based on facts or generally accepted truths."
English and German Enlightenment
The English Enlightenment focused on the problems of utilitarian morality (Shaftesbury, Hutcheson, Gartley, Mandeville) and sensationalist aesthetics (Home, Burke, Shaftesbury, Hutcheson). In epistemology, the Scottish school of "common sense" is original. English deism is more concerned with the problem of religious tolerance and free thought than with theological problems (Toland, S. Clark, A. Collins).
The German Enlightenment is more metaphysical and smoothly grows out of the traditions of classical rationalism of the 17th century. (Chirnhaus, Pufendorf, Thomasius, Wolf, Crusius, Tetens). Later, the German Enlightenment was carried away by religious disputes (under the influence of the pietistic ferment) about religious tolerance, pantheism, the relationship between the rights of the state and the church (Reimarus, Mendelssohn, Lessing, Herder). Baumgarten and Lessing make a significant contribution to aesthetics. Herder, one of the first creators of the principle of historicism, creates an extensive picture of the evolution of nature from inorganic matter to the highest forms of human culture.
The crisis of the European Enlightenment becomes noticeable in such pre-romantic phenomena as the late Rousseau's apologia for the emotional and popular elements, the German literary and philosophical movement "Storm and Onslaught" with its aggressive voluntarism, the intuitionism of the mature Goethe, the anti-Enlightenment attacks of Hamann and F. Jacobi, the visionary mysticism of Swedenborg.
The ideological legacy of the Enlightenment
The historical border of the European Enlightenment is the 1780-1790s. In the era of the English industrial revolution, publicists and ideologists were replaced by engineers and entrepreneurs in culture. The French Revolution destroyed the historical optimism of the Enlightenment. The German literary and philosophical revolution redefined the status of reason.
The intellectual legacy of the Enlightenment was more of an ideology than a philosophy, and so it is rapidly being superseded by German classical philosophy and romanticism, receiving from them the epithet of "flat rationalism." However, the Enlightenment finds allies in the positivists of the 2nd half of the 19th century and acquires a "second wind" in the 20th century, sometimes perceived as an alternative and antidote in the fight against totalitarianism. Thus, enlightenment motifs sound, for example, in the works of Husserl, M. Weber, Russell, Wittgenstein.
To understand the ideas that inspired the bourgeoisie of 1789, one must turn to their incarnations, that is, to modern states.
The form of civilized states that we now observe in Europe was only outlined at the end of the 18th century. The concentration of power had not yet reached such perfection or such uniformity as we see now.
A formidable machine, thanks to which everything male population countries, ready for war, are now set in motion by order from the capital and bring ruin to the villages and grief to the families, which did not yet exist. These countries, covered with a complex administrative network, where the personalities of administrators are completely obscured in bureaucratic slavery and mechanical submission to orders emanating from the central will; this passive obedience of the citizens to the law and this worship of the law, parliament, the judiciary and its agents, which have developed since then; this hierarchy of disciplined officials; this network of schools, maintained or run by the state, where obedience to and adoration of authority is taught; this industry, crushing the worker, wholly given by the state into the hands of the masters; trade, accumulating unheard-of fortunes in the hands of those who seized land, coal mines, communications and other natural wealth, and delivering enormous funds to the state; finally, our science, which, by freeing thought, has increased the productive forces of mankind hundreds of times, but at the same time strives to subordinate these forces to the rule of the strong and the state—none of this existed before the revolution.
However, long before the first peals of the revolution were heard, the French bourgeoisie - the third estate - had already formed an idea of what kind of political organism, in its opinion, was to develop on the ruins of the feudal monarchy. It is quite possible that the English Revolution helped the French bourgeoisie to understand what role they were destined to play in the management of society. There is also no doubt that the energy of the revolutionaries in France was given an impetus by the American Revolution. But since the beginning of the XVIII century. the study of state questions and the political system that could arise on the basis of representative government (constitution) became - thanks to Hume, Hobbes, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Voltaire, Mably, d'Argenson and others - a favorite subject of research, and thanks to Turgot and Smith joined him in the study of economic issues and the role of property in the political structure of states.
That is why, long before the revolution broke out, the ideal of a centralized, well-ordered state, under the rule of classes possessing landed and industrial property, or engaged in liberal professions, was outlined and expounded in many books and pamphlets, from which the leaders of the revolution subsequently drew their inspiration and their deliberate energy.
And that is why the French bourgeoisie, entering the revolutionary period in 1789, already knew perfectly well what it wanted. True, at that time she did not yet stand for the republic (does she stand for it now?), but she did not want royal arbitrariness, did not recognize the rule of princes and the court, and denied the privileges of the nobility, which seized the main government posts, but only knew how to ruin the state, as if just as it ravaged its own vast estates. The feelings of the advanced bourgeoisie were republican in the sense that they strove for republican simplicity of morals, following the example of the young American republics; but it also desired, and above all, the transfer of government into the hands of the propertied classes.
According to their religious convictions, the bourgeoisie of that time did not reach atheism; she was rather "free-thinking"; but at the same time she did not harbor enmity towards Catholicism either. She hated only the church with its hierarchy, with its bishops, who were at one with the princes, and with its priests, obedient tools in the hands of the nobility.
The bourgeoisie of 1789 understood that the moment had come in France (as it had come 140 years earlier in England) when the third estate would become the heir to the power falling from the hands of the monarchy; and she had already considered in advance how she would dispose of this power.
The ideal of the bourgeoisie was to give France a constitution in the manner of the English. The role of the king was to be reduced to the role of an instance that approves the will of the parliament, sometimes, however, the power that maintains a balance between the parties; but above all the king was to serve as a symbol of national unity. The real power, however, had to be elective and be in the hands of the parliament, in which the educated bourgeoisie, representing the active and thinking part of the nation, would dominate all the other estates.
At the same time, the plans of the bourgeoisie included the abolition of all local or private authorities, representing independent (autonomous) units in the state. The concentration of all government forces in the hands of the central executive, under the strict control of parliament, was her ideal. Everything in the state must obey this authority. It will have to control all branches of government: the collection of taxes, the judiciary, the military, schools, police supervision and, finally, the general direction of trade and industry - everything! But along with this, said the bourgeoisie, complete freedom of commercial transactions should be proclaimed; industrial entrepreneurs should be given full opportunity to exploit all the natural wealth of the country, and with it the workers, leaving them to the will of those who will give them work.
At the same time, the state should, they argued, contribute to the enrichment of individuals and the accumulation of large fortunes. To this condition, the bourgeoisie of that time inevitably attached great importance, since the very convocation of the States General was caused by the need to fight the financial ruin of the state.
No less clear were the economic concepts of the people of the third estate. The French bourgeoisie read and studied the works of the fathers of political economy, Turgot and Adam Smith. She knew that their theories were already being applied in England, and she looked at the economic organization of her neighbors, the English bourgeoisie, with as much envy as at their political power. She dreamed of the transfer of land into the hands of the bourgeoisie, big and small, and of her exploitation of the natural wealth of the country, which had hitherto remained unproductive in the hands of the nobility and clergy. And in this the ally of the urban bourgeoisie was the petty rural bourgeoisie, whose numbers were already considerable before the revolution enlarged this class of proprietors. Finally, the French bourgeoisie already foresaw the rapid development of industry and large-scale production thanks to machinery, overseas trade and the export of industrial products; and then she already pictured the rich markets of the East, large financial enterprises and fast growth huge fortunes.
She understood that in order to achieve this ideal, she first needed to break the connection between the peasant and the countryside. She needed the peasant to be able and forced to leave his native nest and go to the city in search of some kind of work; she needed him to change the owner and begin to enrich industry, instead of paying the landowner all sorts of duties, although very difficult for the peasant, but in essence enriching the master a little. Finally, it was necessary that more order be established in the finances of the state, so that taxes would be easier to pay and at the same time bring more revenue to the treasury.
The bourgeoisie needed, in a word, what the political economists called "freedom of industry and trade," that is, on the one hand, the liberation of industry from the petty and deadly supervision of the state, and, on the other hand, complete freedom in the exploitation of the worker, deprived of any the rights of self-defence. The abolition of state interference, which only hampered the entrepreneur, the abolition of internal customs and all kinds of restrictive laws, and at the same time the abolition of all the craft unions, guilds, and guild organizations that existed until that time, which could restrict the exploitation of wage labor. Complete "freedom" of contracts for employers - and a strict prohibition of any agreements between workers. "Laisser faire" ("Let them act") for some - and no way to unite for others!
Such was the double plan outlined in the minds. And as soon as the opportunity presented itself for this, the French bourgeoisie, strong in their knowledge, clear understanding of their goal and their skill in "deeds," undertook, no longer hesitating either about the general goal or about the details, to put their views into practice. She set to work so consciously, with such energy and consistency that the people did not have at all, since the people did not work out, did not create for themselves a social ideal that they could oppose to the ideal of the gentlemen of the third estate.
It would, of course, be unfair to assert that the bourgeoisie of 1789 was guided solely by narrowly selfish calculations. If that were the case, she would never have achieved anything. Great transformations always require a certain amount of idealism. Indeed, the best representatives of the third estate were brought up on the philosophy of the 18th century. - this deep source, which bore in the bud all the great ideas of later times. The truly scientific spirit of this philosophy, its deeply moral character - even where it ridiculed conventional morality - its faith in the mind, in the strength and greatness of a liberated person, once he lives in a society of his equals, her hatred of despotic institutions - all this we find among the revolutionaries of that time. Otherwise, where would they have drawn the strength of their convictions and the devotion to them that they showed in the great controversy?
It must also be admitted that among the people who most of all worked to carry out the program of the bourgeoisie, some sincerely believed that the enrichment of individuals was the best way to enrich the whole people. It was written then with full conviction by the best political economists, beginning with Adam Smith.
But no matter how lofty the abstract ideas of freedom, equality and free progress that animated the sincere people of the bourgeoisie of 1789-1793, we must judge these people on the basis of their practical program, on the basis of the application of their theory to life. How will this abstract idea be realized in real life? This is what gives us the yardstick for its evaluation.
And so, although the bourgeoisie of 1789 was undoubtedly inspired by the ideas of freedom, equality (before the law), and political and religious emancipation, we see, however, that as soon as these ideas were clothed in flesh and blood, they were expressed precisely in that double program, which we have just outlined: the freedom to enjoy all kinds of wealth in the form of personal enrichment and the freedom to exploit human labor without any protection for the victims of this exploitation. However, such an organization political power transferred into the hands of the bourgeoisie, under which the freedom to exploit labor would be fully ensured. And we will soon see what a terrible struggle broke out in 1793, when a part of the revolutionaries wanted to go beyond this program for the real emancipation of the people.
