What were the leaders of liberalism in the 19th century. Liberal movement in the late XIX - early XX centuries, "new" liberalism
Liberalism arose in Europe in the 17th-19th centuries during the struggle of the bourgeoisie against feudal monarchical absolutism. With the development of culture, society began to doubt that absolute monarchs have the divine right to govern the entire life of society and to pass this right on by inheritance.
The origins of liberalism were J. Locke, Sh.L. Montesquieu, J. J. Rousseau), A. Smith), I. Kant (1724-1804),
By the middle of the 19th century, great popularity in the efforts of the West began to acquire liberal doctrine, and in developed European countries - Great Britain (the birthplace of liberalism), France, the United States, then in Italy and other countries, liberal systems were established. The opponent and antipode of liberalism was the conservative system of views, the theory and practice of conservatism, which also became widespread in the European space of Great Britain and other countries and was based on the observance of the customs and traditions of European romanticism.
Liberalism acts on the one hand as political ideology, and on the other hand can be considered as economic doctrine... The ideology of conservatism, which was realized in most European countries in the 19th century, set as its goal the evolutionary development of society and the state, traditions and customs are the cornerstone of this path. Contradictions with liberalism significantly influenced both conservatism and introduced changes in liberal doctrine.
EVENTS AFFECTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF LIBERALISM
English bourgeois revolution of the 17th century (1640-1660)
The destruction of absolutism, a blow to feudal property and its transformation into bourgeois property, the proclamation of freedom of trade and entrepreneurship.
American War of Independence (1775-1783).
Great French Revolution (1789-1799).
By its nature, the revolution was bourgeois and consisted in the change of the feudal system to the capitalist one. The leading role was played by the bourgeoisie, which overthrew the feudal aristocracy. The main slogan of the revolution was freedom, equality, brotherhood.
Great October Socialist Revolution of 1917
An important event in the history of the development of liberalism was the Great French Revolution... In one of its main political and ideological documents, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen (1789), it is written that "the goal of any political association is to preserve the natural inalienable human rights. These rights are freedom, property, security and resistance to oppression."
The Great October Socialist Revolution had a great influence on the development of liberalism. A fundamentally new society was built - socialism, in which private ownership of the means of production was abolished, which led to the establishment of real economic and political equality of all citizens. A planned economy was created instead of the market. Socialism has had a great positive impact on the development of liberalism in the capitalist countries, in terms of its socialization.
20. Conservatism in the history of Europe of the XX century.
Conservatism(from lat. conservo- I keep) - ideological adherence to traditional values and orders, social or religious doctrines. The main value is taken to preserve the traditions of society, its institutions and values.
The historical type of conservatism in the 19th century failed to win in the struggle against social reform, the initiative of which came from the liberals. at the beginning of the 20th century, a new type of conservatism arose - revolutionary conservatism), represented by two types - Italian fascism and German national socialism.
A common feature of a significant part of these political forces was a gravitation towards strong state power, a significant restriction of democracy in favor of the ruling elite, for the sake of establishing and maintaining order and ensuring public safety.
The theoretical constructions of the authoritarian format in their most complete and complete form were developed in Germany. This was facilitated by the defeat of Germany in the First World War. Among the German conservatives of that period, there were two trends: "old conservatives" and "renewing" conservatism. Representatives of the first trend were called "Wilhelmenists" They believed that it was necessary to return to the political system that existed before and during the war. The lost political system was an estate system led by a monarch that did not recognize democratic institutions and was characterized by a disregard for the top, mainly the aristocracy, to the bottom.
Representatives of the "Renewing" conservatism were critical of the period of imperial Germany, criticized the government for tolerating liberalism, inability to give a sharp rebuff to Marxists / socialists.
Common to all representatives of "Renewing" conservatism was the concept of "conservative revolution" or "third way", which directed its criticism towards the principles and institutions of a democratic society, primarily parliamentarism and cosmopolitanism
So, the "conservative revolution" was intended to eliminate the results materialized in the institutions and orders of the republic. First of all, this concerned the principles of liberalism, which was widely developed in Germany.
It is worth noting that the ideas of a "conservative revolution" or "third way" were characteristic of Italian fascism at the early stage of its functioning.
So, in the first half of the XX century. conservatism continued to develop the classical principles formulated at the previous stage of development - traditionalism. A common characteristic of conservatism was the authority of the arism of power: monarchy and republican. He put forward social cohesion and cohesion as a tool for confronting the threats of our time. Among such threats was democracy, as a result of which the conservatism of the first half of the 20th century had a purely anti-democratic character. This was reflected in practice, when a number of states with authoritarian political regimes appeared in Europe: Italy, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Hungary, Romania.
Russian liberals considered the main problem to be the realization of the idea of individual freedom. In Russia, the personality has always been suppressed by the patriarchal family and the despotic state. The human personality can be realized only in society, but at the same time the freedom of the individual is limited by other individuals. For regulation and created the right. That. law is not arbitrary legislation and not a social contract, but the realization of fundamental human rights, while the principle of justice lies at the basis of natural law, and equality is at the basis of positive law, i.e. the state must compensate for inequality. Individual rights are realized through civil and political freedoms.
Similar information:
Search on the site:
In the second half of the nineteenth century. finally, three directions in the social movement took shape: conservatives, liberals and radicals.
The social basis of the Conservative trend was formed by the reactionary nobles, clergy, petty bourgeoisie, merchants and a significant part of the peasants. Conservatism of the 2nd half of the 19th century remained faithful to the theory of "official nationality".
Autocracy was declared the foundation of the state, and Orthodoxy was declared the foundation of the spiritual life of the people. Nationality meant the unity of the king with the people. In this, the conservatives saw the originality of the historical path of Russia.
In the domestic political sphere, the conservatives fought for the inviolability of the autocracy, against the liberal reforms of the 60s and 70s. In the economic sphere, they advocated the inviolability of private property, landlord ownership and community.
In the social sphere, they called for the unification of the Slavic peoples around Russia.
The ideologists of the Conservatives were K.P. Pobedonostsev, D.A. Tolstoy, M.N. Katkov.
Conservatives were the guardians of statesmen and reacted negatively to any mass social action, advocating order.
The social basis of the liberal trend was made up of the bourgeois landowners, part of the bourgeoisie and the intelligentsia.
They defended the idea of a common path of Russia's historical development with Western Europe.
In the domestic political sphere, the liberals insisted on the introduction of constitutional principles and the continuation of reforms.
The political ideal for them was a constitutional monarchy.
In the socio-economic sphere, they welcomed the development of capitalism and free enterprise. They demanded to abolish class privileges.
The liberals stood for an evolutionary path of development, considering reforms to be the main method of modernizing Russia.
They were ready to cooperate with the autocracy. Therefore, their activities mainly consisted of filing "addresses" in the name of the king - petitions with a proposal for a program of transformations.
The ideologists of the liberals were scientists, publicists: K.D. Kavelin, B.N. Chicherin, V.A. Goltsev and others.
Features of Russian liberalism: its noble character due to the political weakness of the bourgeoisie and its readiness to get closer to the conservatives.
Representatives of the radical trend strove for violent methods of transforming Russia and a radical reorganization of society (the revolutionary path).
The radical movement was attended by people from different strata of society (raznochintsy) who devoted themselves to serving the people.
In the history of the movement of radicals in the second half of the nineteenth century. there are three stages: 60s. - the formation of revolutionary democratic ideology and the creation of secret raznochin circles; 70s - the formation of populism, the special scope of the agitational and terrorist activities of the revolutionary populists; 80s - 90s - the weakening of the popularity of populism and the beginning of the spread of Marxism.
In the 60s. there were two centers of the radical direction. One - around the editorial office of Kolokol, published by A.I. Herzen in London. He promoted the theory of "communal socialism" and sharply criticized the conditions for the liberation of the peasants. The second center arose in Russia around the editorial office of the Sovremennik magazine. Its ideologist was N.G. Chernyshevsky, who was arrested and exiled to Siberia in 1862.
The first large revolutionary democratic organization was "Land and Freedom" (1861), which included several hundred members from different strata: officials, officers, students.
In the 70s. among the populists there were two trends: revolutionary and liberal.
The main ideas of the revolutionary populists: capitalism in Russia is imposed "from above", the country's future is in communal socialism, the transformations must be carried out by a revolutionary method by the forces of the peasants.
In revolutionary populism, three currents emerged: rebellious, propagandistic and conspiratorial.
The ideologist of the rebellious trend M.A. Bakunin believed that the Russian peasant was by nature a rebel and ready for revolution. Therefore, the task of the intelligentsia is to go to the people and incite an all-Russian revolt. He called for the creation of a self-government federation of free communities.
P.L. Lavrov, the ideologue of the propaganda movement, did not consider the people ready for revolution. Therefore, he gave the main attention to propaganda with the aim of training the peasantry.
P.N. Tkachev, the ideologue of the conspiratorial trend, believed that the peasants should not be taught socialism. In his opinion, a group of conspirators, having seized power, will quickly draw the people into socialism.
In 1874, based on the ideas of M.A. Bakunin, more than 1000 young revolutionaries undertook a massive "walk to the people", hoping to rouse the peasants to revolt. However, the movement was defeated by tsarism.
In 1876, the surviving participants in the "walk to the people" formed a secret organization "Land and Freedom", headed by G.V. Plekhanov, A.D. Mikhailov and others. A second "visit to the people" was carried out - with the aim of prolonged agitation among the peasants.
After the split of "Land and Freedom", two organizations were formed - "Black Redistribution" (G.V. Plekhanov, V.I. Zasulich and others) and "Narodnaya Volya" (A.I. L. Perovskaya). The People's Will considered the assassination of the tsar as their goal, assuming that this would cause a popular uprising.
In the 80s - 90s. the populist movement is weakening. Former members of the "Black Redistribution" G.V. Plekhanov and V.I. Zasulich, V.N. Ignatov turned to Marxism. In 1883, the Emancipation of Labor group was formed in Geneva.
In 1883 - 1892 in Russia itself, several Marxist circles were formed, which saw their task in the study of Marxism and its propaganda among workers and students.
In 1895, in St. Petersburg, Marxist circles united in the "Union of Struggle for the Liberation of the Working Class."
Date of publication: 2015-01-26; Read: 392 | Page copyright infringement
studopedia.org - Studopedia.Org - 2014-2018. (0.001 s) ...
Moscow Technical University of Communications and Informatics.
Department:
abstract
on Russian history on the topic:"Russian liberalismXIXcentury ".
Prepared by: student of group EB0301
Yakusheva Julia Alekseevna.
Checked :
1. Introduction. 3
1.1 Rationale for the choice of topic .. 3
1.2. The concept of liberalism. 3
2 The emergence of liberalism in Russia. 4
3 Liberalism in the era of Alexander I. 5
3.1 The course of reforms of Alexander I. 5
3.2 Reforms M.M. Speransky. 7
3.3 Problems of reforms of Alexander I. 9
4 The ideological development of liberalism during the reign of Nicholas I. 9
4.1 Currents of social thought under Nicholas I. 9
4.2 Liberal concepts of B.N. Chicherin. eleven
5 Reforms of Alexander II. fourteen
5.1 The state of liberal thought at the beginning of the reign. fourteen
5.2 Reforms of Alexander II. 15
5.3 The half-heartedness of the reforms of Alexander II and the crisis of Russian liberalism. 17
6 Counter-reforms of Alexander III. 19
7 Recent liberal reforms of the Russian Empire. twenty
8 Conclusion. 23
9 List of used literature ………. …………… 24
1. Introduction.
1.1 Rationale for the choice of topic
The entire history of Russia consists of alternating periods of liberal reforms and subsequent reaction. Disputes about whether liberal reforms are necessary, or, better, an authoritarian government in the country, do not fade even today. In order to understand this, it is necessary to turn to the history of Russian social thought, since liberalism is one of its most important components. Therefore, I believe that the topic of my essay is of interest not only from the point of view of history, but also from the point of view of today. The experience of Russian liberalism in the 19th century. it is difficult to overestimate, because many of the problems facing Russia still exist today. This is the need to reform the judiciary, the relationship between law enforcement agencies and the citizen, the whole range of problems associated with ensuring human rights. Separately, it is worth emphasizing the problem of human economic freedoms, the optimal combination of the economic interests of the individual and the state.
1.2 The concept of liberalism
Liberalism arose in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries in response to monarchist absolutism. If the monarchs claimed the divine right to govern the life of society, liberalism replied that it is best to leave civil society to itself - in religion, philosophy, culture and economic life. Sometimes through revolution, and more often through gradual reforms, liberalism carried out a significant part of its program.
Liberalism is associated with such concepts and categories that have become familiar to the modern socio-political vocabulary, such as:
- the idea of the intrinsic value of the individual and his responsibility for his actions;
- the idea of private property as a necessary condition for individual freedom;
- principles of free market, free competition and free enterprise, equality of opportunities;
- the idea of the rule of law with the principles of equality of all citizens before the law, tolerance and protection of minority rights;
- guarantee of fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual;
- universal suffrage.
Liberalism is a system of views and concepts in relation to the surrounding world, a type of consciousness and political and ideological orientations and attitudes. It is simultaneously theory, doctrine, program and political practice.
So, the concept of "liberalism" comes from the Latin word liberalis, which means "free" in translation. Consequently, a liberal is a person who stands for personal freedom - political, economic, spiritual. It is known that liberalism as an ideological trend came to us from the West, but, nevertheless, it is necessary to say a few words about some seeds of liberalism that lay in Russian soil and for historical reasons did not develop.
2 The emergence of liberalism in Russia.
In the XI-XIII centuries. the number of cities with self-government in the form of veche meetings of the townspeople rapidly increased. This did not allow the princes, who claimed full power over the cities, to become too strong. But when the invasion of the Mongol-Tatars began, the cities that were attacked by the conquerors were destroyed or taxed with ruinous tribute. The Mongol rulers, having weakened the freedom-loving Russian cities, strengthened the grand-ducal power.
Having defeated the Horde, the Moscow princes, and then the tsars, did not allow the appearance of such a force inside the country that could successfully resist their power.
It can be said conditionally that the history of liberalism in Russia dates back to February 18, 1762, when Emperor Peter III issued a manifesto "On the granting of liberty and freedom to the entire Russian nobility." The arbitrariness of the imperial power in relation to a person who possessed the dignity of nobility was limited, and the nobleman himself could choose: whether to serve the monarch in the military or civilian part, or to be engaged in the economy on his estate. So for the first time in Russia there was an estate that possessed civil liberties and private property recognized by the state and protected by law.
At the end of the 18th century. the main features characteristic of Russian liberalism have developed. Liberal freedoms were preached by representatives of the nobility. Their ideal was the British constitutional monarchy - a combination of economic and political freedoms (freedom of speech, press, etc.) with the preservation of noble privileges in relation to all other classes.
3 Liberalism in the era of Alexander I.
3.1 The course of reforms of Alexander I.
The reign of Alexander I can rightfully be considered the era of the greatest flowering of the ideas of liberalism among the nobility. Alexander's tutor, a citizen of republican Switzerland, Laharpe managed to convince his student that the era of absolute monarchs was over. Laharpe argued that if Russia wants to avoid bloody chaos, then the throne needs to take the lead in carrying out two major reforms - the abolition of serfdom and the introduction of a constitution. The teacher warned Alexander that the monarch should not count on the support of a significant part of the nobility in carrying out these reforms. No, most of them will resist, defending their economic well-being, based on the labor of thousands of serfs. Therefore, one should not rush to abandon the autocratic form of government. On the contrary, all the power of the royal power must be used to carry out reforms and educate the people in order to prepare them for the adoption of these reforms.
"The days of the Alexandrovs are a wonderful beginning ..." - the famous Pushkin's words about the dawn of the reign of Tsar Alexander Pavlovich. This opinion was shared by many contemporaries, which is not at all surprising. Here are a number of the first decrees of the young emperor, which clearly marked the "course" of his reign.
March 15, 1801 noble elections were restored in the provinces; the ban on the import of a number of goods has been lifted.
On March 22, free entry to and exit from Russia was announced, which was very limited under Paul I.
On March 31, printing houses and the import of any books from abroad are allowed. At that time, it was an unthinkable freedom for many European countries, especially for Napoleonic France.
On April 2, Catherine's letters of gratitude to the nobility and cities were restored. On the same day, the Secret Expedition (institution of political investigation) was destroyed. The country did not, however, for a long time, and the secret police itself.
True to the behests of Laharpe, Emperor Alexander Pavlovich strove to surround the throne with like-minded people. Since 1801, the highest government posts were held by supporters of British constitutionalism: Chancellor A.R. Vorontsov, his brother, who served in London for a long time S.R.Vorontsov, admirals N.S. M. Speransky. The outlook of these dignitaries was strongly influenced by the French Revolution. They feared that Russia might experience the same upheaval.
Proponents of the reforms rejected the revolution as a way to renew society, believing that this path leads to anarchy, the death of culture and, ultimately, to the emergence of a dictatorship. Semyon Romanovich Vorontsov, criticizing the despotic policy of Paul I, wrote: “Who does not wish that the terrible tyranny of the past reign could never be restored in our country? But one cannot just make the jump from slavery to freedom at once, without falling into anarchy, which is worse than slavery. "
In order not to repeat the fate of his father, Alexander I strove to develop projects of many reforms in secret from wide circles of the nobility. He formed something like a "conspiratorial headquarters" for the preparation of transformations. It included the tsar's closest and most trusted friends: A.E. Czartoryski, V.P. Kochubei, N.N. Novosiltsev and P.A. Stroganov. Contemporaries called this headquarters the Secret Committee. Members of the Tacit Committee saw their political ideal in the British constitutional monarchy. But the matter did not come to serious reforms: the wars with Napoleon, which began in 1805, interfered.
Alexander's transformative plans were also hampered by the powerful passive resistance of the bureaucracy and the conservative-minded groups of the aristocracy, which impeded any projects in this area.
3.2 Reforms M.M. Speransky.
M. M. Speransky played an important role in the development of liberalism in Russia. Mikhail Mikhailovich Speransky was born into the family of a poor rural priest and at the age of seven he entered the Vladimir Theological Seminary. In the fall of 1788. he, as one of the best students, was sent to the newly created Alexander Nevsky Seminary in St. Petersburg. He devotes a lot of time to pursuing philosophy, studying the works of Descartes, Rousseau, Locke, Leibniz. In his first philosophical works, he denounces arbitrariness and despotism, calls for respect for the human dignity and civil rights of the Russian person.
(To the list of lectures)
Russian liberalism of the 19th century
1. The emergence and features of Russian liberalism.
(Up)
Parallel to populism and the labor movement in the 2nd floor. XIX century. The liberal movement is also beginning to gain special strength in Russia.
Liberalism (lat. free)) is a doctrine calling for the provision of individual freedom, civil, political and economic rights and freedoms.
Liberalism is the brainchild of capitalist society, when a person freed from feudal dependence begins a struggle for equal rights and freedoms with the ruling elite.
Therefore, the liberals took the position of Westernism, recognizing the regularity of the development of capitalism in Russia, and considering it natural to reform the socio-political system.
The beginnings of liberal thought in Russia began to form in the 20-30s. XIX century.
One of the first in Russia with liberal requirements to endow society with rights and freedoms and enshrine them in the Constitution were Decembrists .
During the polemic between Westernizers and Slavophiles all R. XIX century. liberal views were expressed by prominent politicians and statesmen Kavelin and Loris-Melikov .
In the 2nd floor. XIX century. capitalism in Russia has just begun to develop, so Russian liberalism was formed under the strong influence of Western European liberal thought, but with adjustments to the peculiarities of Russian reality.
19th century European liberalism put forward the requirements for the free development of a person, the supremacy of the individual and her interests over collectivism, the state guaranteed human rights and freedoms, the right to property and free competition, etc.
Russian liberals Having absorbed the ideas of Slavophilism, they tried to develop a theory of reforming the state while preserving purely Russian traditions - the monarchy, the peasant community, etc.
They demanded the elimination of estate privileges, the creation of a volost zemstvo, a decrease in redemption payments, a reform of the State Council, the involvement of zemstvos in legislative activities, etc.
These requirements did not affect the foundations of autocracy and were aimed only at its gradual reform into a constitutional monarchy, the creation of a civil society and the rule of law in Russia.
The bourgeoisie, as the main bearer of liberal ideas in the West, in Russia was still so weak and dependent on the government that it itself was afraid of radical reforms, and therefore occupied the right flank of the movement - the so-called liberal conservatism .
Therefore, the main carriers of liberal ideas in Russia were the progressive nobility and the intelligentsia, which only strengthened the pro-monarchist shades of this social and political movement.
After the defeat of the revolutionary Decembrist wing, the Russian nobility abandoned illegal activities, limiting themselves to petitions "In the highest name" .
The reforms of Alexander II gave a serious impetus to the development of the liberal movement 60-70s.
The general emancipation of society led to the expansion of the liberal movement at the expense of the Russian intelligentsia, which made changes in the tactics of the movement.
Maintaining, for the most part, monarchist views, the liberal intelligentsia considered it necessary to increase pressure on the authorities.
They used semi-legal methods: letters to the highest name, propaganda of new ideas in student audiences, support for peaceful political actions (strikes, demonstrations, etc.).
2. Ideology of the liberal intelligentsia
(Up)
a) B. N. Chicherin (Up)
One of the brightest representatives of Russian liberal thought 60s XIX century was a lawyer, historian, philosopher Boris Nikolaevich Chicherin .
Sherwood, Vladimir Osipovich. Portrait of B.N. Chicherin. 1873 g.
The son of a noble landowner, he received an excellent education at home, studied at the law faculty of Moscow University, where he was considered one of the best students of T.N. Granovsky, S.M. Solovyov and K.D. Kavelin, and where he was left to prepare for a professorship.
While in London, Chicherin met with Herzen, but their views sharply diverged.
Herzen advocated revolutionary positions, while Chicherin believed that in Russia only the autocratic power possesses sufficient strength to carry out reforms, and therefore it is necessary to act through the government.
He wrote:
“Rebellion can be an extreme refuge of need; in revolutions, sometimes the historical turns of people's life are expressed, but this is always violence, not law. "
According to him, the uprising inevitably leads to chaos, therefore, individual freedom can exist only in the state, and within the framework of the law.
In radical views Herzen and Chernyshevsky he saw evidence of the immaturity of Russian society, which once again convinced him of the prematureness of the Constitution for Russia.
Chicherin greeted the reforms of Alexander II with joy, considering the path of reforms to be the most optimal for Russia.
Since 1861. he began teaching state law at Moscow University.
It was then that his program was finally formed. "Liberal conservatism" , which was based on the principle "Liberal measures and strong power" .
Chicherin's views on the transformation of Russia "above" received the support of many liberal-minded statesmen, among whom was the Minister of Foreign Affairs A.M. Gorchakov, who had a great influence on Emperor Alexander II.
In 1863. Chicherin was invited to teach a course in state law to the heir to the throne, the Tsarevich Nikolai Alexandrovich , on which the liberals had high hopes.
However, they were not destined to justify themselves - in 1865. Tsarevich Nicholas died, and Tsarevich became the heir Alexander Alexandrovich (future Alexander III), not inclined to continue liberal reforms.
After the assassination of Alexander II March 1, 1881. Chicherin was elected Moscow Mayor, but his political career did not work out.
His liberal views clashed with conservatism K.P. Pobedonostseva preparing counterreforms.
The new government took Chicherin's speeches as a requirement of the constitution, which led to his resignation.
b) P. N. Milyukov (Up)
In the end. XIX century. joined the Russian liberal movement "Fresh blood" .
The developing capitalism of post-reform Russia gave birth to a new intelligentsia, "Purified" from outdated Slavophilism and absorbed all the new achievements of Western European science.
One of the most striking figures of this time was Pavel Nikolaevich Milyukov .
Pavel Nikolaevich Milyukov
Born into the family of a professor-architect two years before the Manifesto on the emancipation of the peasants, Miliukov made a brilliant scientific career.
In 1881. he was expelled from Moscow University and arrested for participating in student demonstrations.
However, the very next year he not only completed his studies, but was also left as a professor. V.O.Klyuchevsky at the Department of Russian History.
In 1895. Milyukov for "Bad influence on youth" was dismissed from the University and sent to Ryazan.
In 1899. for participating in a meeting dedicated to the memory of P.L. Lavrov, he was sentenced to 6 months in prison.
Only a petition to the tsar of Klyuchevsky made it possible to shorten this period. up to 3 months , after which Miliukov emigrated abroad not for the first time.
During the period 1903-1905. he traveled and lectured in England, the Balkans and the United States.
In emigration, he met with leaders of the liberal and social democratic movement (P.A.Kropotkin, E.K. Breshko-Breshkovskaya, V.I. Lenin, etc.).
In 1905. when in Russia began First Russian revolution , Milyukov returned to his homeland and immediately began to create a party cadets (constitutional democrats) , which became the largest liberal party in Russia.
Political ideal Milyukov was a parliamentary constitutional monarchy of the English type, which was to replace an unrestricted autocratic regime.
He advocated the convocation of a Constituent Assembly, which would develop a constitution and turn Russia into a rule-of-law state with a parliamentary monarchy, giving citizens broad political rights.
Program constitutional democrats provided for the introduction of universal suffrage and democratic freedoms, the implementation of the requirement for cultural self-determination of the nations and peoples of Russia, an 8-hour working day, the solution of the agrarian question by transferring the monastic, state and state-purchased part of the landlord's lands to the peasants.
Like the noble liberals, Milyukov advocated an evolutionary path of social development, but if the government is unable to carry out the necessary reforms in a timely manner, it is permissible political revolution (but not social).
Milyukov avoided any extremes, for which his views were criticized by both radicals and moderates, calling them "Cowardly liberalism" .
3. Zemsky liberalism
(Up)
Zemskaya reform January 1, 1864. led to the creation of zemstvo self-government bodies, in which landowners and zemstvo intelligentsia (doctors, teachers, agronomists, etc.) were represented in the majority.
Zemstvo bodies received economic functions, which led to the revitalization of local economic life and, at the same time, to the development of the zemstvo social movement.
The purpose of the zemstvos was to create a representative institution from local self-government bodies, and their admission to public affairs.
In 1862. the Tver provincial nobility sent an appeal to the emperor, which said:
"The convocation of elected representatives from all over the world is the only means to a satisfactory solution to the questions raised but not resolved by the regulation of February 19."
Intensification of populism and the development of terrorism end
70s prompted the Zemstvo people to take action.
The liberal nobility was ready to help the government in the fight against the rampant leftist forces, if the government went to rapprochement with them.
Among the representatives of the government there were supporters of rapprochement with the liberal part of society, proposing to create a representative body of government.
Among these are the Chairman of the Supreme Administrative Commission Loris-Melikova , who developed the project for the creation Big commission from representatives of zemstvo self-government bodies.
However, regicide March 1, 1881. buried this project, and Alexander III, who ascended the throne, refused any rapprochement with the liberals.
Any opposition was viewed by him as a manifestation of revolutionary spirit.
4. Liberal populism
(Up)
Liberal populism represents a special trend in the liberal movement.
These views were formed under the influence of Slavophil ideology and liberalism.
The main theorist of this trend was a native of the nobility, a publicist and one of the editors of magazines "Notes of the Fatherland" and "Russian Word" - Nikolai Konstantinovich Mikhailovsky .
Nikolai Konstantinovich Mikhailovsky. Photo from the magazine "Niva" for 1904
Mikhailovsky's views largely echoed the ideas of the populist propagandists.
As well as Lavrov , he considered the main value of a person who needs to be protected from an unjust society, and pinned his main hopes on the activities of a progressively minded minority - the intelligentsia, which should express the interests of all working people.
But, unlike Lavrov, Mikhailovsky did not believe in the revolutionary potential of the peasantry and opposed any revolution.
In one of his letters, he wrote to Lavrov:
"I am not a revolutionary, everyone has his own."
Mikhailovsky did not deny the importance of revolutions in the history of mankind, but he saw in it a danger both for the accumulated wealth of civilization and for the integrity of the individual.
Acceptable methods, he recognized political struggle staying on legal reform positions .
Through magazines, he advocated the destruction of the remnants of serfdom and landlord land ownership, a way out of the deplorable situation of the peasants, considering the allotment of land to them and the creation "Working peasant economy" , which should go non-capitalist way of development.
In the 80s. the main role in the study of post-reform Russia was played by liberal populist economists - Danielson and Vorontsov .
In their works, they revealed the predatory nature of the reform for the peasants. 1861 g. , proving that the countryside became a source of funds and labor for the development of capitalism in Russia.
Capitalism destroyed the basis of the community, splitting its population into two hostile groups - the ruined peasants and the wealthy well-to-do kulaks.
Capitalism itself they believed "Illegitimate child of nature" , which was artificially grown by the government and kept only at the expense of state orders, supplies and lease operations, and not at the expense of the needs of the domestic market.
In their opinion, capitalism, which does not have any natural basis, is easy to collapse, for which the government should take two important measures :
Create state-owned enterprises;
redeem landlord lands;
after which all means of production must be transferred to the producers themselves, but not into ownership, but for the collective use of peasant communities and workers' artels.
At the same time, peasant communities must radically change, adopting and applying in practice all the latest achievements of science and technology.
According to Danielson , it is the intelligentsia that must take responsibility for educating the peasants, using economic arguments to induce the government to change the path of development.
5. The meaning of liberalism
(Up)
The liberal democratic movement developed in Russia both during the reforms of Alexander II and during the counterreforms of Alexander III.
Despite the differences in the views of various liberal trends, they were all united by the idea of the supremacy of the interests of the individual, broad rights and freedoms, the parliamentary and constitutional order.
The wide spread of liberal ideas among the upper strata of the population testified to the political crisis of the ruling elite.
However, the fear of a repetition of European revolutions in Russia, bringing chaos and danger to the individual, society and the state, averted Russian liberals from revolutionary methods.
This fear gave rise to the so-called liberal conservatism .
The weakness of the Russian liberal movement was also in the fact that it remained fragmented, and therefore weak.
They were unable not only to unite with the populists, but even to create a united liberal front.
The main significance of Russian liberalism is that, against the background of the activation of radical socialists and the strengthening of conservative reaction, it offered Russian society an evolutionary reformatory way of development.
At that moment, it depended on society and the authorities how Russia would develop.
(Up)
Liberalism is the leading ideological trend in the 19th century, the social base of which was formed by representatives of the middle bourgeois class. It had a non-partisan character, since liberal ideas were shared by representatives of not only liberal, but also conservative parties.
There are two liberal traditions. The first, Anglo-Saxon, was widespread in Great Britain and the USA; it was distinguished by its practical orientation and international character. The second, continental European, found the greatest application in France, Italy, Germany; it was more speculative (theoretical), had fewer outputs in the practical sphere as a result of the dominance of feudal-absolutist regimes in the political life of these countries.
The term "liberalism" is broad, it includes not only a certain set of ideas, but also movement for freedom, government policy, the way of life of individuals in society. Unlike conservatism and socialism, other leading ideological currents of the 19th century, liberalism was a product of the age of enlightenment, when the main provisions of its political theory were formulated; they remained virtually unchanged in the 19th century, which separated the economic and ethical sides of liberal doctrine. Thinkers of a number of countries have contributed to the formation of the liberal tradition: G. Spencer, D. S. Mill, I. Bentham in Great Britain, B. Constant, A. Tocqueville, F. Guizot in France, B. Humboldt in Germany ...
Despite the difference in national traditions of conservatism, the original theories of individual liberal thinkers, the main provisions of the classical liberal doctrine are reduced to the following basic ideas:
1. The principle of individualism; individuals are the value of any society, individuals are self-sufficient, their fundamental rights are the right to freedom and private property. They were the main criteria for progress, which the liberals understood as the maximum increase in private property and the accumulation of wealth by the nation.
2. Freedom, widely interpreted, had several varieties, among which the most significant were economic freedoms (trade, exchange, competition).
3. The state is a supra-social element, it must have a minimum of functions, which are reduced to protecting the borders of the state from external danger, maintaining social order within the country, protecting private property.
4. Among political ideas, the liberals defended the idea of separation of powers into 3 branches (legislative, executive and judicial), the development of parliamentarism and the process of democratization.
In the last third of the 19th century, a new doctrine took shape, which came to be called social liberalism. Its creators were primarily the English thinkers T. X. Green, J. Hobson, L. Hobhouse, as well as the philosophers of France, the USA, and Germany. She tried to overcome the narrowness of the social base of classical liberalism, which was revealed in the last decades of the 19th century, to attract the working class to its side. The main difference of the new teaching was the revision of the role of the individual and the state in society.
Social liberals believed that the freedom of individuals should not be unlimited, individuals should coordinate their actions with other members of society and should not harm them by their actions. The functions of the state in society, which had to take care of its citizens, provide them with equal rights to receive education and medical care, expanded. Progress began to be associated not so much with the maximum accumulation of wealth, but with its even distribution among the members of the collective; social liberal thinkers moved away from the absolutization of private property; since the whole of society participates in its production, property also has a social side. The idea of the right to private property as the leading one for individuals was also revised and it was recognized that for some categories of the population the right to work and a living wage are more important.
Both liberal doctrines were humanistic and reformist; liberals denied the revolutionary way of transforming society; were supporters of gradual progressive reforms. A number of liberal ideas were adopted by conservatives and socialists. Unlike liberal parties, which experience certain difficulties in modern history, liberal doctrine is an important component of modern political culture.
Russian liberalism in the 2nd half of the 19th century
Russian liberalism as a social political movement was formed in 30-4Or 19 during the discussion between Westernizers and Slavophiles. A compromise was reached on the basis of Chicherin's theory. He believed that the mutual greatness of the system and peoples is a universal law of historical development. There are no backward and advanced countries. Each nation contributes to the development of humanity. As Russian society develops, certain elements of European development will be perceived and adapted to Russian society. In general, post liberalism took shape by the 50s of the 19th century.
The social support of Russian liberalism is becoming the nobility. They attributed the realization of liberalism to the distant future.
Russian liberals considered the main problem to be the realization of the idea of individual freedom.
In Russia, the personality has always been suppressed by the patriarchal family and the despotic state. The human personality can be realized only in society, but at the same time the freedom of the individual is limited by other individuals. For regulation and created the right. That. law is not arbitrary legislation and not a social contract, but the realization of fundamental human rights, while the principle of justice lies at the basis of natural law, and equality is at the basis of positive law, i.e. the state must compensate for inequality. Individual rights are realized through civil and political freedoms.
The second problem is relations in society. Society and the state are phenomena of a different order. Society is a set of private aspirations, and the state gives them a form, realizing the idea of social compromise. The necessary elements of the rule of law are a strong government, the rule of law and guarantees of individual freedom. The state is a force standing above society. Its main task is to achieve social harmony. At the same time, the liberals did not idealize any form of government. They believed that any form could be optimal for each stage of historical development and for each people. Being supporters of a constitutional monarchy, Russian liberals believed that reform in Russia was possible only under the control of the state and excluded any violent and illegal methods, that is, they assumed the long-term preservation of the absolute monarchy.
The third problem - the social support of reforms and the future liberal state, they considered the middle class, that is, the class that will be created as a result of the merger of the advanced strata of the nobility and the emerging Russian bourgeoisie. Only a compromise between the bourgeoisie and the nobility will preserve social stability, but the nobility must become accustomed to the market economy, and the bourgeoisie will learn to rule the country.
Lecture 8.
Benjamin Constant's theory of direct and indirect democracy.
Dates of life: 1786-1830 French aristocrat. 1789-1794 - The French Revolution. The monarchy was destroyed in France. In 1814, the Bourbons returned to the throne under a constitutional monarchy. K in his 1814 work Political Principles Applicable to All Forms of Government. In 1830 - the second revolution, as a result of which the Bourbons were finally overthrown, the Orleans dynasty ascended to the throne.
1819 - "On the freedom of the ancients in comparison with the freedom of modern peoples." Direct democracy is the direct participation of the people in government. Indirect (representative) - people's participation in government through elected representatives. Direct democracy is political freedom, indirect democracy is civil freedom. The essence of political freedom is the right of the people to participate in government; this right is the same as duty. Ancient man has no choice. In ancient democracy, there was no distinction between private and public life. Society and the state control the private life of the individual, there is no freedom of conscience, freedom of inner spiritual life, respectively, all other freedoms are meaningless. Civil liberty is not the same right as a duty. The concept of autonomous private life appears and all human rights are based on this autonomy. In 1789, based on a chapter from Montesquieu's book, a declaration on fundamental human rights and freedoms was adopted. Constant rejected the main methodological flaw of the revolutionaries arising from the concept of Rousseau. Rousseau's concept of popular sovereignty actually suppressed the concept of individual rights and freedoms. The concept of popular sovereignty became incompatible with autonomy. Rousseau failed to distinguish between the freedom of the whole and the freedom of the individual. Constant singled out human rights as the main value (freedom of choice of profession, freedom of movement, freedom of acquisition and loss of property, freedom of speech, assembly, petition, etc.). The mechanism of transition of ancient democracy to modern - economic reasons. Constant, following Grotius, realizes that it has become more profitable to trade than to fight. "The military impulse is replaced by the trade calculation." The nature of property is changing, the nature of the relationship between the citizen and the state. The property of the ancients was inextricably linked with material carriers, that is, it was "visible wealth." An individual could not guarantee the safety of this property without the help of the state. Such tangible property is vulnerable. Therefore, the individual is dependent on the state. Modern property - in addition to the visible, invisible wealth appears ("fictitious capital" - securities, electronic accounts). No one can seize this property without the knowledge of the individual (in Europe). The vector of relationships is changing - now the state depends on the individual. This is the economic basis of democracy - it is the economic basis for the control of states by citizens.
Constant. Separation of powers.
J. Locke created the concept of separation of powers - legislative, executive and federal powers. The essence of the concept is a system of checks and balances. The classical triad was created by Montesquieu. Constant gives an archaic theory - early liberalism - this liberalism is associated with constitutional monarchy. 5 branches of government: royal, government, two chambers of parliament: the chamber of peers and the chamber of deputies, the court.
Royalty is not medieval royalty. The concept of the king corresponds to the concept of the president. The king is deprived of sacred status, the king is a citizen endowed with the highest state power. The king does not take part in government, the king is the arbiter in possible conflicts between various branches of government. The king is the one who corrects the mistakes of the various branches of government. With regard to government, the king appoints and dismisses the government. Wu K government is responsible to the king. The king has the power only to dismiss the minister, and if the minister has committed illegal actions, he falls under the jurisdiction of the court. King-Parliament: veto power on bills. With regard to court bodies - the right to pardon
Government - separation of constitutional and administrative norms of activity. That is, Constant proposes to give the government a sufficiently high degree of freedom and determine its responsibility for the final results of its activities. The government cannot be judged during the intermediate results of their activities.
Parliament. House of Peers. Non-elected chamber of the hereditary aristocracy. It has a stabilizing function. Peers occupy an intermediate position between the king and the people. Peers provide a forum for informal contacts between the elite. Constant means the salons. Constant proceeds from the fact that state management cannot be carried out only by the method of formalized procedures. Preliminary negotiations are required. Filter function - France in the early 19th century is wild capitalism - a state of industrial revolution. The new French (parvenu) were not allowed into politics.
Chamber of Deputies. Election of the best, which should carry out the nomination of the elite to the highest government posts. Archaic traits: property qualification (10-15% of the total population). 1 person - 1 vote. Electoral rights can only be given to the owner. Veiled permission to bribery of voters: if elected, you can help the district.
Judicial branch. Constant opposes the legal nihilism of the Jacobins (revolutionary tribunals: no competition, no lawyers, no courts of appeal). Accordingly, Constant deduces the basic principles of justice: the independence of the court, the apoliticality of the courts, the restoration of the principles of adversariality, courts of appeal, etc. The system of execution of punishments - K gives a well-developed program for the humanization of this system. K speaks about the individualization of punishments, advocates the humanization of imprisonment: he requires compliance with the principle of compliance with the principle of punishment and crime, he requires punishment in order to prevent further harm to society, but not to aggravate the suffering of the offender. Constant opposes shameful punishments, shackles in permanent prisons, for civilian control of prisons.
Classic Liberalism by Alexis de Tocqueville.
1806-1859 Aristocrat. He received his law degree at the Sorbonne. In 1827 - the post of an official of the judicial department at the court of the Bourbons in Versailles. In 1830 he left for the USA for 8 months. Returning to write a book about the US prison system as applied to France. In 1835-1839 - a work on "Democracy in the United States."
In 1856 - "The Old Order and the Revolution".
Tocqueville proves the regularity of the transition from aristocracy to democracy. Reasons for the transition: economics. The economic basis is the transition from an agrarian society to an industrial one. Agrarian society is inherently a static economy. This is a natural economy tied to natural cycles. The industrial economy is a dynamic economy. The main criterion for assessing the industrial economy is the presence / absence of economic growth. Economic growth does not happen by itself. Ec growth occurs when there are new technologies. New technologies are the result of creativity. Therefore, the development of any society depends on the efficiency with which these few talents are used. The problem of "randomness of talent". Talent is largely predetermined genetically. The task of society is to adjust the political, ec, social structures to this process. Democracy is most suitable for this, the efficiency is higher. The aristocracy is a class society. In class societies, the status of an individual, his profession and material reward is determined by his class origin, and therefore the efficiency becomes very low. Democracies are individualistic civil societies. Accordingly, the status, profession, material reward are determined by the individual abilities and labor costs of the individual. The hierarchy of estates is a hierarchy of individuals. The meaning of freedom as the basic concept of liberalism is to give a person a chance to reveal their abilities. If a person has nothing to reveal, then he does not need freedom. The best is the best, the worst is the worst. At the same time, a basic defect of democracy arises - the desire of democracy to turn into anarchy. 2 trends in the development of European statehood:
Democratization as a destabilizing trend;
Bureaucratization as a stabilizing trend.
On the one hand, power must pass from aristocrats to democrats, on the other, to bureaucrats. Bureaucracy arose in France during the "old order" of the 17th and 18th centuries. It is connected with the complication of state administration. Bureaucrats differ from democrats in the same way that professionals differ from non-professionals. A professional differs from an amateur in 2 characteristics:
The professional receives a special formalized education
A professional receives a checkmate for his work
Pros: bureaucrats are more efficient managers. Cons: bureaucracy is a formalized system, that is, a mechanism. In Europe, with the emergence of bureaucracy, the principle of apoliticality was laid. The main lesson of the Jacobin terror is that this bureaucratic machine was used not for good, but for harm, not for management, but for repression against political opponents. As a result of the Jacobin terror, about several tens of thousands of people died. Jacobins - defined murder as a good deed, for the public good. Thus, Tocqueville saw the prototype of the totalitarianism of the 20th century. The main task is to establish control over the bureaucracy.
The problem of political parties. For the first time, political parties appear in a modern version. Archaic version - Plato, Aristotle (patrician plebeians, that is, patron client). A political party is an active part of a social group watered, the cat aims to gain access to state administration for this purpose, takes part in parliamentary elections. Political parties nominate candidates, they become legislators, pass laws, on the basis of laws, by-laws are created, departmental instructions that are binding on the bureaucracy. Control over bureaucracy is ensured.
Tocqueville on Democracy in America. The United States overtook Europe - universal male suffrage in Great Britain was partially introduced in 1885. The gap is more than half a century. The reason is the uniqueness of the conditions. The American Society is an expatriate society. The settlers found themselves in a situation of freedom and equality. Freedom was provided by the continent. Equality is the conditions for moving (people did not move there from a good life). The first sore - in North America it was impossible to create feudalism as a mode of personal dependence of one person on another. Second, the emergence of socialism was not possible, since it was impossible to create a proletariat. Unlimited opportunities for any person to acquire property. The primary cell of democracy was the community of the first settlers. In it, they learned 2 lessons of democracy: the lesson of choice (the ability to choose competent leaders and block the election of demagogues) and the lesson of the correlation of rights and responsibilities (if there are rights and responsibilities; that is, if there is a right to choose a leader, that is, the obligation to obey this leader). That. democracy was originally separated from anarchy. Parliamentary democracy was initially formed within the framework of the rule of law. Freedom is possible only within the framework of the law. In the 17-18 centuries. the population of North America is increasing. The population density is gradually increasing, communities are united into counties, counties - into states, states - into a confederation. The state emerges from below.
Democracy is a networked management structure, a grid. Consists of autonomous independent interacting centers of power.
Aristocracy is a pyramidal administrative system with one center of power and a subordinate periphery.
"-" of democracy: slower character of decision-making, weak ability to centralize resources.
"+" Of democracy: high quality of management decisions, a system of checks and balances.
Aristocracy - prompt decision-making and centralization of resources, but at the same time there is a high risk of erroneous decisions, there are no insurance mechanisms.
3 basic disadvantages of democracy:
Democracy, in contrast to the aristocracy, is weaker militarily; During a military clash, all democratic procedures should be disabled.
Higher level of corruption; In the aristocracy, the governors are richer than the governed, in a democracy - the opposite. Corruption is indestructible. The task is to reduce it to a minimum, not allowing it to destroy the state mechanism. The main mechanism of the struggle is the control of civil society over the bureaucracy.
In a democracy, in contrast to the aristocracy, the level of non-conformism (dissimilarity) is higher. Standardization of thinking and behavior. In the aristocracy, an external regulation of human behavior is formed, the appearance of estates, place of residence, profession, etc. is regulated. At the same time, the inner spiritual life is not subject to regulation. In a democracy, human rights are affirmed as an absolute value, and therefore external regulations disappear (see Constant). Internal self-regulation (self-control) is formed in the process of socialization of the individual, which is more effective than the external one. A society of cogs is being formed. Americans were willing to do business, but did not engage in science and art. Tocqueville proposed a kind of division of labor. USA - mighty Rome, Europe - enlightened Greece: material and spiritual wealth.
Neoliberalism by John Stuart Mill. 1809-1873
Englishman. Lived in London. 1848 - "Principles of Political Economy", "On Representative Board".
Constant and Tocqueville gave classical liberalism, characterized by the absolutization of freedom. In practice, this absolute freedom of competition gave absolute freedom of exploitation. In practice, this has turned into wild capitalism. Over-exploitation of workers, extrapolation of society. The era of bourgeois revolutions threatened to develop into the era of proletarian revolutions.
1848 - the manifesto of the communist party. Declarations of political freedom and equality turned into fictions at such a level of inequality. Liberals understood the criticism. Classical liberalism was limited to understanding the rule of law of Kant. The state must pass the necessary laws, the state must ensure the equality of all citizens before the law. Further, individuals must ensure their own interests. Neoliberalism does not deny this concept, but adds the concept of the welfare state. The welfare state must ensure the regulation of social and economic processes, must provide each individual with a minimum of livelihood. It is necessary to separate the state and market sectors in the economy. In a market economy, enterprises should remain that produce goods and services that directly satisfy human needs. Enterprises and institutions that produce goods and services that do not directly satisfy human needs, but ensure the social reproduction of society as a whole (education, health care, science and culture), must be brought into the public sector.
To prevent proletarian revolutions, the proletariat must be turned into a middle class. Mill proposes corporatisation of enterprises. As a result, actions spread among the proletarians and they thus cease to be proletarians. They will remain hired workers, as they will continue to receive payment for their labor, but in addition they will receive dividends, that is, a part of the company's profits. The problem of class conflicts will disappear. The strikes will exhaust themselves. Revolutions are senseless.
Mill's political theory. Representative government theory. Unlike Tocqueville, Mill does not regard conformism as a sign of democracy. For Mill, the meaning of democracy is to bring to power through the election of the best, "people with principles." "People with principles" lead "people with interests," that is, the masses. The main supporting structure of the representative board is the classical triad, but Mill focuses primarily on the technologies for the formation and functioning of these branches of government. The main problem is the problem of parliament. The task of parliament is formulated in the term itself. Fr "parle" - to speak. Parliament is a talking shop. The task of the deputies is to voice the interests of their voters during the debates and thus translate them into the texts of the adopted laws. This is the essence of representative democracy. But the task of democracy is for the deputies to speak out the interests of the voters, but not their own. The fact of lobbying and bribery becomes obvious only at the next stage, that is, at the stage of law enforcement.
2 conditions for the functioning of representative democracy:
Universal suffrage. Mill proposed to remove all property qualifications and give the workers the right to vote. "Either the workers are sent to the polling stations, or they will go to the barricades."
The difference in the principles of the choice of deputies and the appointment of officials. Deputies should be chosen on the basis of their moral qualities (public interests are higher than personal ones), officials - on the basis of their professional qualities. A deputy is elected at a fairly mature age (40-50 years). Public politicians have no privacy.
After the election of the deputies, the faults of the parliament are inevitable. 2 types of disadvantages:
Positive. Associated with the relative professional incompetence of the deputies. Parliament can decide on its own and by technical means: 1) it is necessary to separate the stages of preparation of bills and adoption of laws, bills need to be prepared in specialized committees, deputies should be selected to specialized committees on the basis of professional qualities. 2) it is necessary to provide individual assistants for the deputies (everyone decides for himself who he needs). 3) consulting firms.
Negative. This is a paralysis of the legislative work of parliament due to internal political conflicts. The executive branch must intervene in a mode of checks and balances, that is, such a parliament must be dissolved and re-elections must be called.
Mill's concept of executive power is the concept of Westminster Democracy. Mill's main problem is the problem of stabilizing public administration. He proposes a model - it is necessary to separate the political leadership and the bureaucracy. Political hands - the Prime Minister and ministers. They come and go depending on the election results. It is a dynamic element in the system of executive power, a mechanism of civilian control. The outcome of the parliamentary elections does not affect the bureaucracy (civil service). Bureaucracy is a stabilizing element, it does not depend on the political situation. Seniority, education, qualifications - 3 criteria. During the re-election period, the technical staff will remain in their places.
The judicial branch is identical in type to the executive branch. Completed on the basis of professional qualifications. The judiciary is subject to civilian control. The jury exists for this. Citizens elected to jurors do not have legal qualifications and make decisions based on life experience and common sense. Thus, the judge, making a legal decision, ensuring compliance with the letter of the law, the jury - correcting the decision on the basis of the spirit of the law.
Postclassical liberalism of the late 19th - early 20th centuries.
Moisey Yakovlevich Ostrogorsky. 1854-1919 Born in St. Petersburg, graduated from the Faculty of Law of St. Petersburg University. Free School of Political Science in Paris. In 1895, the work "Democracy and Political Parties" was published in French in Paris. Liberalism PK is Western Europe and North America. Developed states that have created a system of industrial means of transport and communication. The individual acquired this level of mobility and got out of the control of traditional corporations. Perceptible shifts have occurred in related sciences. The general theory of systems arises. It formulates the main regularity - the degree of stability of the system increases in direct proportion to its ability to centralize and consolidate resources. In classical liber theories, it was considered sufficient to free individuals, create Brownian motion and wait for the result. In PC theories, it is considered necessary to create centralized structures. This is the task that political parties should solve. Advances in social psychology: Proven that individual and collective behavior is different, different behavior. In the mass, the effect of imitation acts on a person, the individual loses the ability to rationalize the surrounding reality. This effect extends to the political movement as well. Deviant voting.
Montesquieu has 3 forms of government that differ in the spirit of the laws. Democracy is virtue, monarchy is honor, despotism is fear. Ostrogorsky: virtue is not a permanent principle, but the ideal of democracy, citizens participate in government, preferring personal interests to public ones. In modern states, public administration is complicated so that ordinary citizens cannot technically participate in public administration, even more so in political processes. In this regard, the political elite receives a relative degree of autonomy, they do not directly depend on the masses. The relationship is ensured as follows: the voter must trust the competence and virtue of the leadership. The criterion for this trust is the election turnout. Citizens retain the possibility of extra-systemic actions or "spasmodic attacks of civic virtue", that is, if the elite does not manage the state well and the situation in the state is deplorable, then the citizens cannot "visit officials" - the law of expected reactions. The concept of fear - for Montesquieu, fear is the principle of managing despotism, for Ostrogorsky, fear is inherent in all forms of government. Fear of a subordinate before the hands. Despotism involves fear of physical violence. Democracy presupposes fear of mental violence (isolation, public opinion).
The concept of political parties of Ostrogorsky. For the liberals of the classics - watered parties are instruments of the influence of civil society on the state. The state's means of influencing civil society is according to Ostrogorsky. Political parties are the forces that organize elections and concentrate the political energy of the masses. In a political party, the role of the leader becomes fundamentally important (that is, since the individual is irrational, then it is necessary to manage by influencing emotions). Political programs are becoming useless and require serious correction (bright slogan, emblem). These political programs are losing their class ideological character. Capitalism emerged as a class society. This early industrial society assumed the stability of class identification. At the end of the 19th century, "fluid clientele" formed. Life is faster - a change of status up to several times in a lifetime, a change in political position. Therefore, political programs lose their class ideological character, omnibus programs appear - they are designed for all groups of voters. This eclecticism (centrism) leads to that. that all programs become the same. In view of this, these programs cannot be implemented, since they only solve pre-election programs - to invite the people to vote. Thus, political parties must act on an extremely motley and irrational crowd. Parties began to form in the 17th century (Tories and Whigs in Great Britain). They were not of a public nature. At the end of the 19th century, on the American example, "bosses" appeared (from the Dutch - the owner), a party bureaucracy of its own - a permanent apparatus - appeared. Difficulties: on the one hand, the formal apparatus, on the other, the caucus (council of elders in the North American Indians) - shadow meetings of party leaders. Careton club - Tory leaders met in 1831, 1836 - Whig's Reborm club. It was there that the most important decisions were made. "The role of the labor exchange" for candidates for deputies. Candidates were assigned to constituencies. These gatherings also dealt with the issue of funding, as funds are now needed large, sustainable sources of funding. Membership fees are becoming symbolic. Main funds from sponsors to lobby their interests. Issues of further legislative activity are being worked out. The Whip (whip, hunter with a whip) appears - the shadow leader of the parliamentary faction. It ensures the attendance of deputies in the House of Commons, voting. There is a complication of state administration, hence the complication of legislation. The deputy who was driven to the vote did not have time to understand the law, voted as the VIP said. I didn’t vote like that - I didn’t receive funding. With regard to voters, electoral technologies appear (“fair receptions” - bright colors, loud sounds). The principle of influencing the subconscious is frequent repetition. The idea of the best candidate must be driven into the subconscious of an ordinary voter: personal meetings, printed materials, party leaflets, show business (engaging artists).
PK liberalism. Max Weber's theory of plebiscite democracy.
Max Weber. 1864-1920 Graduated from the University of Heidelberg in Germany. Works: 1905 - "Protestant ethics and the spirit of capitalism", 1918 - "Politics as a vocation and profession."
Belongs to neocontianism, sociological jurisprudence.
For normatives, the state is a system of authorities that create legal norms. In sociological jurisprudence, the state is the population living in a certain territory. Therefore, such a state cannot be studied by the method of one jurisprudence. The state is a social organization that has a monopoly on legitimate violence, that is, it is assumed that only the state can use violence to fulfill its functions. The main character of the state is the character of the legitimization of violence. It's about legitimate violence. At the same time, violence does not become legitimate. That is, citizens should not understand the legitimacy of state violence and the state is effective if this violence is perceived as legitimate. This task is solved by those who create the state.
Christian statism of Ivan Aleksandrovich Ilyin.
1883-1954 Born into a noble family in Moscow. Graduated from the Law Faculty of Moscow University. He took the position of assistant professor at the Department of State and Law. 1918 - doctoral dissertation "Philosophy of Hegel as the doctrine of the concreteness of God and man." Arrested 6 times. In 1922 he was sent to Germany. Radically anti-Bolshevik position. 1925 "The Crisis of Godlessness" and "Resistance to Evil by Force." Ilyin argued that Bolshevism had no national origins, it was an epidemic. In 1938 he migrated to Switzerland. 1952 "On the monarchy and the republic."
Etatism was built on Hegelian philosophy. Considers the state in 2 stages of its development. Stage 1 - people unite for the sake of safety. Ilyin defines such a state as an organized strong-willed union of a local character. At the second stage, spiritual factors are connected that unite people, creating a "homeland united and formalized by public law." Homeland is the organic unity of compatriots. 3 factors uniting people in such a state:
1) Solidarity. Common goals.
2) Correlation. Correlation according to external racial and anthropological characteristics. This is the original desire to live among similar people.
3) Mutuality. Striving for mutual assistance.
If they act, the state is formed as an organic integrity, which is united by a certain landscape, a certain people, economic, political systems, spiritual culture. It is impossible for Ilyin to transplant one element of the national system into another national system. Distinguishes between a person and a citizen. Man is a biological being, a citizen is his political and legal projection. Nationality refers to the basic biological level. You cannot change it. Citizenship can be changed. An indicator of the health of a national state is the presence of patriotism. Patriotism - giving spiritual meaning to the natural connections of a person and his place of residence. A person, as a biological being, has a habitat. But only a person can give this spiritual meaning. Accordingly, this spiritual quality of the individual is irrational. Patriotism at the subconscious level ensures the subordination of personal interests to public ones. At the maximum, it is self-sacrifice.
Ilyin distinguishes 3 forms of the state. The extreme ones are liberalism and totalitarian democracy. Denies it. Moderate authoritarianism (liberal nurturing dictatorship) is the best form. Denies totalitarianism for the suppression of individual initiative, market economy, violation of private property rights and state atheism. Liberal democracy: the main vice is elections, since the rights of individuals are mechanically equalized. Each individual is specific and unique. Voting in elections is an attempt to solve qualitative problems by quantitative methods. The main qualitative problem in the elections is the definition of the public good. You cannot solve by mechanical means.
Ilyin suggests the following. In its organic state, two hypostases are distinguished: the state as an institution and the state as a corporation. As an institution - Ilyin's elite state organized from the top down. The elite makes decisions aimed at the common good. As a corporation - an association of citizens organized from the bottom up. This state can be called a dictatorship, since the government is not elected.
Political and legal concepts of totalitarianism of the 20th century.
Karl Popper's theory of open and closed societies. 1902-1995 Austrian German. In 1937 he received an invitation to teach at the University of New Zealand, which he accepted. In 1945 he moved to Europe. Works: 1945 London "The Open Society and Its Enemies".
Totalitarianism arose in Germany, Italy, that is, in highly cultured countries. An open society is democracy, a closed one is totalitarianism. A closed society is a society in which individual behavior is subject to external regulation. In an open society, the rules are rational, clear to everyone, and public. In closed societies, they are irrational. A closed society has pros and cons. A primitive tribe is a local collective, small in number, in a hostile environment, extreme conditions. A totalitarian state is a regime of a besieged fortress. In this situation, there are: Personal relationships. On the basis of this, solidarity ethics arise. Basic formula: One for all and all for one. If there are enemies around, you need to help your own. This is a plus. External regulations block individual creativity, development slows down.
Open societies first arose in ancient Greece in the 1st century. BC. The individual is partially out of the control of traditions, of the collective. A great culture is emerging, the standard of living rises, the population grows. Social connections can no longer be based on the factor of personal acquaintances. Therefore, social connections are formalized. A person is assessed not as a person, but as a bearer of a social role. Any democracy is freedom. Freedom of competition. The problem of responsibility arises. Freedom of choice entails responsibility for the results of this choice. The problem in stochasticity is the probabilistic nature of processes. It is impossible to predict actions and results. Discomfort occurs. The higher the level of civilization development, the higher the level of complexity of processes, connections, the higher the level of stochasticity, unpredictability and, as a result, the higher the level of discomfort. This gives rise to a natural tendency to give up freedom of choice, thus giving up responsibility.
The enemies of the open society are 3 philosophers who created alternative totalitarian projects: Plato, Hegel and Marx. Plato - the era of the formation of polis democracy. Hegel - Napoleonic wars, the realm of the absolute spirit. Marx - the concept of communism. These 3 authors compensated for their external mess, chaos by creating theories of ideal societies.
Why it is impossible to create an ideal state. Difference. Historicism is a scientific methodological principle. The principle of historicism presupposes a search for the laws of this development. But these patterns are subjective and conditional. Historicism - ideological concepts are created on the basis of this principle. It replaces the subjective conventional laws with objective absolute laws. The philosophical basis of totalitarianism arises. There is no freedom of choice. If the leader of a state claims that he knows the laws of such development, he needs to transfer absolute power. Where is the mistake? The next level is to compare social and utopian engineering. The principle of historicism is the basis of social engineering. Historicism is utopian. Social engineering is a mechanism for managing a free society, a tactic for small matters. Within its framework, local goals are set, the achievement of which is possible in relatively short periods of time and with little effort. The environment is assumed to be stochastic. When circumstances change, the target is supposed to be corrected.
Utopian engineering presupposes the grandiose goal of building an ideal society. It requires feats. By virtue of ideality, the target cannot be corrected. Thus, the stochastic factor is ignored. Therefore, a situation arises of setting deliberately unattainable goals, uncontrolled development. The main problem is uncontrollability.
Within the framework of social engineering, partial, but real control is given. Within the utopian, total uncontrollability.
Ethics is the foundation of an open society. Closed is based on aesthetics. All totalitarian states were built through revolutions associated with the total rejection of the previous moral systems. Popper - totalitarian states have no ethical foundations. The basis of any ethical system according to Popper is the principle of asymmetry of pleasure and suffering. In any ethics, a choice is required to reduce suffering, but not in any way, but not to increase pleasure. Happiness "of humanity is not worth the tear of one child." All ethical systems are built on self-sacrifice, a feat for the sake of future benefits.
The authors of totalitarian projects have the moral right to sacrifice pleasure for their own, but not for their compatriots. If there is no morality, then a totalitarian state can only be governed by violence. A totalitarian state is an internal instability with an external force “a colossus with feet of clay”.
1900-1983 Was born in Frankfurt. Emigrated to the USA. 1941 - "Flight from Freedom". Belongs to the Frankfurt School of Social Psychology. The personality cult paradox. From an external, objective view, totalitarianism is an unsympathetic phenomenon: a weak economy, militarization, the omnipotence of the special services, a low standard of living, and ineffective leadership.
Fromm's methodology: neo-Freudianism. Freud understands human consciousness as a system consisting of 3 levels. Middle level: I. Lower - it, Higher - over I. Development of civilization is development over I. Development of culture - increase and complication of normative prohibitions (limitation of instincts). The result is the appearance of stress, tension. The method of psychoanalysis is the elimination of stress, neuroses. Not eliminating neuroses is the result of psychosis. Fromm used Freud's theory to study the psychology of the masses. Allocates 2 large cycles, consisting of 2 phases (maternal and paternal).
1) the mother phase - the primitive system. Man does not understand his difference from nature. All problems are physical in nature. Intellectual development is slowed down.
2) paternal - antiquity. The individual gets out of the control of society, traditions, goes to explore the world around him. The price of development is psychological fatigue. Ancient civilization is falling apart.
1) European Middle Ages. Mother is a Catholic Church with institutions of repentance and absolution.
2) New time. European capitalism. The person goes out of control of the collective for the second time. Transition from agricultural to industrial technologies.
Spiral development. Two stress factors appear: industrialization (in the agrarian - the activity corresponds to the biorhythms, in the industrial - it does not correspond), urbanization (in the village - a person lives among a small group of personal acquaintances to him, in the city - a crowd of lonely people (Riesman). people are hostile). Psychological discomfort is correlated with economic discomfort.
Escape from freedom is a mechanism for the formation of a totalitarian society. Fromm distinguishes between positive (freedom for. Freedom for which a person is adapted) and negative (freedom from. Freedom to which a person is not adapted) freedom. In Germany in the 20-30s, these 2 factors were superimposed + the Versailles peace (the ban on having an army and the payment of reparations) and, as a result, an economic depression. The result is social depression. An increase in the number of people who have passed from positive freedom to negative.
An authoritarian personality is a universal type of personality that has existed, exists and will continue to exist in all types of states (inhabitants). In a crisis, this type of personality is activated. Requires order. From a psychological point of view, the author is a sadomasochistic person. Sadism is the enjoyment of subjugating others. Masochism - getting pleasure from submission to others. Such a sadomasochist is not able to perceive others as equals, any other individual, either inferior or superior. This type of personality is not capable of compromise. The language of violence, coercion is the only possible way of social communication and control. This personality forms the "leader state".
The problem is this: a totalitarian state is legitimized only through violence.
1) such a state is very good in the case of a “besieged fortress”;
No state can survive if it is constantly at war. Either the state is dying, or it must get out of the "besieged fortress" situation. Self-destruction of such a totalitarian state begins. The place of the destroyed elite is taken by the anti-elite. The anti-elite are people who hold leadership positions, but do not possess the qualities of a leader. The functioning of the entire state depends on the leader. As long as charisma works, the totalitarian state works. Then the leader experiences stress, psychosis, and nervousness. The result is "a colossus with feet of clay." There are mistakes, but there is no one to fix them. The state is crumbling.
Van Hayek's theory of command economy.
1899-1992 Austrian German. Until the 2nd World of War, he held the post of professor of law and political science at the Vienna University. Emigrates to the UK. 1944 - The Road to Slavery. Nobel laureate in economics. Hayek is a theorist of the Chicago (monetarist) school.
Paradox. Starting with Adam Smith, in economics it is considered axiomatic that a market economy is more efficient than a planned one. In the 20th century, planned economies outstripped market economies in key sectors of scientific and technological progress. Hayek proceeds from the fact that the economic development of Europe in modern times is the strengthening of state regulation of the economy. This is due to the growing importance of NT fact, the chaotic nature of scientific and technical creativity. The state is trying to overcome this chaos according to the principle "who pays, calls the tune." State regulation ensures the transition from "wild" to civilized capitalism. 2 main directions:
1) The state through the tax system withdraws part of the entrepreneurial profit necessary for financing the state. State taxes should be stable and transparent.
2) The state introduces regulation of those spheres of entrepreneurial activity that cover the whole society as a whole (ecology, wages).
The problem is that it is very easy to move from state regulation to state regulation. State regulation is a sign of a totalitarian economy and applies to all spheres of entrepreneurial activity. The problem is the danger of the first step.
Hayek sees a fundamental difference between economics and other natural sciences. Breaking the law has obvious negative consequences in the natural sciences. In economics, negative consequences are not obvious, but which will be obvious in the future (time lag).
Pros: totalitarian economies turn out to be the effect of instruments of forced modernization. These decisions are instant. Allows you to create new industries from 0.
Cons: development cost.
Deadlock in the development of totalitarianism. Hayek proceeds from the assumption that humanity has gone through 3 stages of technological development: agrarian, industrial and post-industrial. Totalitarianism is an effect of a tool for the transition from agrarian to industrial types of technologies. These 2 types can develop in the same way. Therefore, these types of economies are susceptible to political, power impulses. But totalitarianism cannot ensure the transition to information technology, since this type of economy cannot develop in an extensive way. No production of material resources is required. The main resource is information. To produce new information, you need to use the human factor.
Totalitarian economies in the 20th century existed only when there was an artificial resource supply from outside.
In classical liberalism, the idea of antipaternalism is substantiated, the essence of which is that each person is the best judge of his own interests. And therefore, society must provide its citizens with the greatest freedom, compatible with the equal rights of others. At the same time, freedom is interpreted negatively, as the absence of coercion, as personal and civil freedom, as the inviolability of the sphere of private life. It is this aspect of freedom that seems to be the most significant: political freedoms by liberals at the beginning of the 19th century. considered as a guarantee of personal and civil rights. B. Constant saw the reasons for the misfortunes of the French Revolution in the attempt of its leaders to embody the ancient ideas of public freedom in modern conditions that were completely unsuitable for it. “Personal independence is the foremost of modern needs,” he wrote. “This means that one should never demand sacrifice from her for the sake of establishing political freedom.” 1 On the contrary, the latter is only a guarantee of the former. The "classical liberals" attached great importance to this guarantee.
"Philosophical radicals" believed that, proceeding from the idea of utility as the main imperative of people's actions, social harmony is determined by reasonable "rules of the game", rational and equal for all, giving individuals the opportunity to most effectively take care of their own interests. The main obstacle to the creation of such rules is the modern state, which represents the “selfish” interests of the aristocracy and clergy. "Philosophical Radicals" were active propagandists of parliamentary reform, on the eve of which was at that time England. The most authoritative exposition of their political program is considered to be the Study of Governance by J. Mill (1820).
The greatest freedom, compatible with the equal rights of others, ensured by reasonable “rules of the game” established and supported by the state - this is the credo of “classical liberalism”.
The concept of freedom occupies a special place in the liberal doctrine, because from the very beginning the liberal worldview tended to recognize the ideal of individual freedom as a universal value. This freedom was generally understood as freedom from political, ecclesiastical and social control by the state since the time of J. Locke.
POSITIVEISM is the leading trend in sociology of the 19th century, the main provisions of which were formulated by O. Comte. Comte proclaimed the need to abandon speculative, speculative reasoning about society and create an accurate, "positive" science of society, built on the model of the natural sciences, as evidence-based and universally valid. Positivism is characterized by direct borrowing of methods and theoretical models of natural sciences (biology, human anatomy and physiology, mechanics), based on the understanding of social laws as a part or continuation of natural laws. Therefore, the characteristic features of classical positivism were naturalism, organicism and evolutionism. Positivism is also characterized by the requirement that science deals only with observable objects and phenomena, and laws express relations between phenomena and be directly verifiable.
Department :
abstract
on Russian history on the topic: "Russian liberalism XIX century ".
Prepared : student of group EB0301
Yakusheva Julia Alekseevna.
Checked :
1. Introduction. 3
1.1 Rationale for the choice of topic .. 3
1.2. The concept of liberalism. 3
2 The emergence of liberalism in Russia. 4
3 Liberalism in the era of Alexander I. 5
3.1 The course of reforms of Alexander I. 5
3.2 Reforms M.M. Speransky. 7
3.3 Problems of reforms of Alexander I. 9
4 The ideological development of liberalism during the reign of Nicholas I. 9
4.1 Currents of social thought under Nicholas I. 9
4.2 Liberal concepts of B.N. Chicherin. eleven
5 Reforms of Alexander II. fourteen
5.1 The state of liberal thought at the beginning of the reign. fourteen
5.2 Reforms of Alexander II. 15
5.3 The half-heartedness of the reforms of Alexander II and the crisis of Russian liberalism. 17
6 Counter-reforms of Alexander III. 19
7 Recent liberal reforms of the Russian Empire. twenty
8 Conclusion. 23
9 List of used literature ………. …………… 24
The entire history of Russia consists of alternating periods of liberal reforms and subsequent reaction. Disputes about whether liberal reforms are necessary, or, better, an authoritarian government in the country, do not fade even today. In order to understand this, it is necessary to turn to the history of Russian social thought, since liberalism is one of its most important components. Therefore, I believe that the topic of my essay is of interest not only from the point of view of history, but also from the point of view of today. The experience of Russian liberalism in the 19th century. it is difficult to overestimate, because many of the problems facing Russia still exist today. This is the need to reform the judiciary, the relationship between law enforcement agencies and the citizen, the whole range of problems associated with ensuring human rights. Separately, it is worth emphasizing the problem of human economic freedoms, the optimal combination of the economic interests of the individual and the state.
Liberalism arose in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries in response to monarchist absolutism. If the monarchs claimed the divine right to govern the life of society, liberalism replied that it is best to leave civil society to itself - in religion, philosophy, culture and economic life. Sometimes through revolution, and more often through gradual reforms, liberalism carried out a significant part of its program.
Liberalism is associated with such concepts and categories that have become familiar to the modern socio-political vocabulary, such as:
The idea of the intrinsic value of the individual and his responsibility for his actions;
The idea of private property as a necessary condition for individual freedom;
The principles of free market, free competition and free enterprise, equality of opportunity;
The idea of the rule of law with the principles of equality of all citizens before the law, tolerance and protection of minority rights;
Guarantee of fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual;
Universal suffrage.
Liberalism is a system of views and concepts in relation to the surrounding world, a type of consciousness and political and ideological orientations and attitudes. It is simultaneously theory, doctrine, program and political practice.
So, the concept of "liberalism" comes from the Latin word liberalis, which means "free" in translation. Consequently, a liberal is a person who stands for personal freedom - political, economic, spiritual. It is known that liberalism as an ideological trend came to us from the West, but, nevertheless, it is necessary to say a few words about some seeds of liberalism that lay in Russian soil and for historical reasons did not develop.
In the XI-XIII centuries. the number of cities with self-government in the form of veche meetings of the townspeople rapidly increased. This did not allow the princes, who claimed full power over the cities, to become too strong. But when the invasion of the Mongol-Tatars began, the cities that were attacked by the conquerors were destroyed or taxed with ruinous tribute. The Mongol rulers, having weakened the freedom-loving Russian cities, strengthened the grand-ducal power. Having defeated the Horde, the Moscow princes, and then the tsars, did not allow the appearance of such a force inside the country that could successfully resist their power.
It can be said conditionally that the history of liberalism in Russia dates back to February 18, 1762, when Emperor Peter III issued a manifesto "On the granting of liberty and freedom to the entire Russian nobility." The arbitrariness of the imperial power in relation to a person who possessed the dignity of nobility was limited, and the nobleman himself could choose: whether to serve the monarch in the military or civilian part, or to be engaged in the economy on his estate. So for the first time in Russia there was an estate that possessed civil liberties and private property recognized by the state and protected by law.
At the end of the 18th century. the main features characteristic of Russian liberalism have developed. Liberal freedoms were preached by representatives of the nobility. Their ideal was the British constitutional monarchy - a combination of economic and political freedoms (freedom of speech, press, etc.) with the preservation of noble privileges in relation to all other classes.
The reign of Alexander I can rightfully be considered the era of the greatest flowering of the ideas of liberalism among the nobility. Alexander's tutor, a citizen of republican Switzerland, Laharpe managed to convince his student that the era of absolute monarchs was over. Laharpe argued that if Russia wants to avoid bloody chaos, then the throne must take the lead in carrying out two major reforms - the abolition of serfdom and the introduction of a constitution. The teacher warned Alexander that the monarch should not count on the support of a significant part of the nobility in carrying out these reforms. No, most of them will resist, defending their economic well-being, based on the labor of thousands of serfs. Therefore, one should not rush to abandon the autocratic form of government. On the contrary, all the power of the royal power must be used to carry out reforms and educate the people in order to prepare them for the adoption of these reforms.
"The days of the Alexandrovs are a wonderful beginning ..." - the famous Pushkin's words about the dawn of the reign of Tsar Alexander Pavlovich. This opinion was shared by many contemporaries, which is not at all surprising. Here are a number of the first decrees of the young emperor, which clearly marked the "course" of his reign.
March 15, 1801 noble elections were restored in the provinces; the ban on the import of a number of goods has been lifted.
On March 22, free entry to and exit from Russia was announced, which was very limited under Paul I.
On March 31, printing houses and the import of any books from abroad are allowed. At that time, it was an unthinkable freedom for many European countries, especially for Napoleonic France.
On April 2, Catherine's letters of gratitude to the nobility and cities were restored. On the same day, the Secret Expedition (institution of political investigation) was destroyed. The country did not, however, for a long time, and the secret police itself.
True to the behests of Laharpe, Emperor Alexander Pavlovich strove to surround the throne with like-minded people. Since 1801, the highest government posts were held by supporters of British constitutionalism: Chancellor A.R. Vorontsov, his brother, who served in London for a long time S.R.Vorontsov, admirals N.S. M. Speransky. The outlook of these dignitaries was strongly influenced by the French Revolution. They feared that Russia might experience the same upheaval.
Proponents of the reforms rejected the revolution as a way to renew society, believing that this path leads to anarchy, the death of culture and, ultimately, to the emergence of a dictatorship. Semyon Romanovich Vorontsov, criticizing the despotic policy of Paul I, wrote: “Who does not wish that the terrible tyranny of the past reign could never be restored in our country? But one cannot just make the jump from slavery to freedom at once, without falling into anarchy, which is worse than slavery. "
In order not to repeat the fate of his father, Alexander I strove to develop projects of many reforms in secret from wide circles of the nobility. He formed something like a "conspiratorial headquarters" for the preparation of transformations. It included the tsar's closest and most trusted friends: A.E. Czartoryski, V.P. Kochubei, N.N. Novosiltsev and P.A. Stroganov. Contemporaries called this headquarters the Secret Committee. Members of the Tacit Committee saw their political ideal in the British constitutional monarchy. But the matter did not come to serious reforms: the wars with Napoleon, which began in 1805, interfered. Alexander's transformative plans were also hampered by the powerful passive resistance of the bureaucracy and the conservative-minded groups of the aristocracy, which impeded any projects in this area.
M. M. Speransky played an important role in the development of liberalism in Russia. Mikhail Mikhailovich Speransky was born into the family of a poor rural priest and at the age of seven he entered the Vladimir Theological Seminary. In the fall of 1788. he, as one of the best students, was sent to the newly created Alexander Nevsky Seminary in St. Petersburg. He devotes a lot of time to pursuing philosophy, studying the works of Descartes, Rousseau, Locke, Leibniz. In his first philosophical works, he denounces arbitrariness and despotism, calls for respect for the human dignity and civil rights of the Russian person.
After completing the course in 1792, having worked for several years as a teacher in the seminary, Speransky became the secretary of Prince A. B. Kurakin, and later served in his office. On the day of the coronation of Alexander I, Speransky compiled the text of his appeal to the people, which outlined the program for the future actions of the young sovereign. In March 1801. Speransky became the manager of the expedition of civil and spiritual affairs in the office of the Permanent Council, created by the emperor to develop a reform program.
At the same time, Mikhail Mikhailovich served in the Ministry of Internal Affairs as Secretary of State V.P. Kochubei. In 1802 -1804. Speransky prepared several of his own political notes: "On the fundamental laws of the state", "On the gradual improvement of the public", "On the strength of general opinion", "Something else about freedom and slavery", "A note on the structure of judicial and government institutions in Russia."
A supporter of the constitutional system, Speransky was convinced that new rights must be bestowed on society by power. At the same time, Speransky understood that Russia was not yet ready for a constitutional system, that it was necessary to start transformations with the reorganization of the state apparatus.
In 1808. the tsar appointed Speransky as his chief adviser in state affairs and proposed to prepare a general plan of state reforms. The creation of the plan was preceded by a lot of preparatory work: Speransky and his employees translated and analyzed the legislative documents of other countries that were contemporary to him. In the fall of 1809. the plan of state reforms (or "Introduction to the Code of State Laws") was ready.
In 1810. Speransky's plan was considered in the newly created State Council - the highest deliberative body of the Russian Empire. In January 1810. with the establishment of the State Council, Speransky became the state secretary, in fact, the second person after the emperor in the state. His transformations affected all strata of Russian society, and the reaction to the reforms was most often negative. Speransky was accused of undermining the state foundations of Russia.
From all sides, Alexander received negative comments about the Secretary of State. March 17, 1801 Broken by intrigues, the emperor said to Speransky: "Circumstances demand that we part for a while." The reformer was sent into exile in Nizhny Novgorod.
The liberal reform plan that emerged as a result of Speransky's work turned out to be somewhat abstract and "premature." According to the figurative expression of V.O. Klyuchevsky, "neither the sovereign, nor the minister could in any way adjust him to the level of the real needs and available funds of the country."
Liberal dignitaries and publicists of Alexander's times stubbornly adhered to one of the basic tenets of liberalism, namely, respect for private property. This predetermined their cautious attitude to the problem of serfdom. If the estates are the property of the nobility, and the peasants are attached to this property, they reasoned, then it is impossible, even by the will of the emperor, to abolish one of the basic laws of the empire overnight, and at the same time to shake the very foundation of liberalism.
A split in the liberal camp took place at the end of Alexander's reign. Then secret societies began to appear, uniting mainly young officers. According to the conviction of these nobles, the peaceful, evolutionary path of development of Russia has exhausted itself, and reforms can be carried out only by turning to revolutionary methods. The transition of a part of the nobles to revolutionary positions ended with an uprising on December 14, 1825. on Senate Square.
Since then, the liberal movement in Russia has constantly wavered: it either approached the throne, trying to push the monarchs to carry out reforms "from above", then it looked for allies in the camp of revolutionaries.
The era of the reign of Nicholas I, which began with the Decembrist uprising, is known as the era of reaction, when the words "liberalism" and "revolution" were considered synonymous. The new emperor had no doubt that unlimited autocracy was a blessing for Russia. He saw his political ideal in Peter the Great. Nicholas felt a great distrust of the fruits of the European Enlightenment, and the revolution of 1848-1849. in the West they strengthened him in this distrust, forcing him to ruthlessly punish subjects who were seen in "free thinking". But under Nicholas, Speransky, returned to state activity, put in order the legislation of the empire, and General P.D. Kiselev, known for his liberal convictions, prepared projects for peasant reform.
The liberal movement under Nicholas I was not limited to the activities of several dignitaries. The disputes between Westernizers and Slavophiles became the main event in the intellectual and social life of that time. At the same time, their influence on the political life of the country was not great. Despite all the ideological differences, the Slavophiles and Westernizers closely converged on the practical issues of Russian life: both currents had a negative attitude towards serfdom and demanded freedom of speech and press. The Westerners were closer to the liberals than the Slavophiles who preferred the Orthodox autocracy and the peasant community to European democracy and capitalism, saw the roots of liberal ideas in Russian soil and opposed the copying of Western forms of social life.
Westerners did not represent a single movement. Some of them advocated the evolutionary path of development of Russia, like the historian T.N. Granovsky. Others, like V.G. Belinsky and A.I. Herzen, saw their ideal in the European revolutions of 1789-1849. And yet the liberal charge of the Westernizing trend was quite high. Among the Westernizers, the greatest ideologist of Russian liberalism B.N. Chicherin. His political and legal teachings had a significant impact on the development of liberal views in Russia.
Professor of Moscow University B.N. Chicherin, having adopted many of the ideas of Russian Westernism, went further along the path of strengthening the liberal aspects of their doctrine. In his works on state and legal issues, Chicherin insisted on the need for reforms in political life in Russia.
Chicherin prepared a fundamental five-volume study "The History of Political Doctrine" (1869-1902), the works "Property and the State" in two volumes (1881-1883), "The Course of State Science" in three parts (1894-1898). ), "Philosophy of Law" (1900). A great place in the works of Chicherin was given to the freedom of the individual. In the concept of freedom, Chicherin distinguished two sides - negative (independence from someone else's will) and positive (the ability to act on one's own motivation, and not on external dictates).
Law, according to Chicherin, is an integral part of all societies. In essence, law is a mutual restriction of freedom under the general law, Chicherin argued. Subjective right is the legal freedom of a person to do or demand something; objective law is a law (a set of norms) that defines freedom and establishes the rights and obligations of participants in legal relations. Both of these meanings are inextricably linked, since freedom is expressed in the form of law, while law is aimed at recognizing and defining freedom - "the source of law is not in the law, but in freedom."
Chicherin recognized property as a necessary manifestation of freedom. In a number of works, especially in the essay "Property and the State", he challenged the theory of the socialists about the transfer of all production and distribution into the hands of the state, "the worst owner you can think of." Property right, according to Chicherin, is a fundamental legal principle arising from human freedom and establishing the sovereignty of a person over a thing. The invasion of the state into the area of property and the restriction of the owner's right to dispose of his property, Chicherin argued, is always evil.
The state has the duty to protect the legitimate rights and interests of citizens, and it itself, according to Chicherin, arises as a result of a common will on the basis of one of three types of public unions: family, civil or church. Chicherin concludes that the state is "a supreme union, which is designed to restrain private forces and does not allow one to conquer others ... Any private enslavement is contrary to state principles."
The scientist opposed the equalization of the property status of citizens. If formal equality (equality before the law) constitutes a requirement of freedom, then material equality (equality of states) contradicts freedom. Freedom, Chicherin argued, necessarily leads to inequality of states. The task of law, according to Chicherin's teachings, is not to destroy diversity, but to restrain it within the proper limits. Thus, at the center of Chicherin's concept is a person with his own rights and freedoms.
Through the prism of individual rights and freedoms, Chicherin analyzed various forms of government. The highest stage in the development of the idea of the state, he considered the constitutional monarchy, in which, as he argued, the various principles of community are brought to ideal unity. Chicherin's theory of constitutionalism was at odds with the orders of autocratic Russia, about which he more than once spoke critically.
Chicherin distinguished three types of liberalism: street, opposition, protective.
- "Street liberal- he wrote, - he does not want to know anything but his own willfulness ... He greedily guards every riot, he slaps every lawlessness, because the very word law is hateful to him ... ... A distinctive feature of a street liberal is that he is all his opponents considers scoundrels. ... Here they are trying not to prove, but to trim, hurt or spit. "
The second type of liberalism, according to Chicherin, is opposition, in which there is no requirement for affirmative action, but only "enjoying the very splendor of the opposition position." "Oppositional liberalism understands freedom from a purely negative side. Abolish, destroy, destroy - that is its whole system," Chicherin wrote. The peak of the well-being of oppositional liberalism, in his opinion, is "liberation from all laws, from all constraints." With the help of several categories-labels, this kind of liberalism, Chicherin noted, judges all the phenomena of social life. "Moreover," constant opposition inevitably makes a person narrow and narrow. "
According to Chicherin, a positive meaning can be given to freedom only protective liberalism. It is necessary to act, understanding the conditions of power, not becoming systematically hostile to it, not making reckless demands, not maintaining impartial independence. Power and freedom are inseparable, just as freedom and moral law are inseparable. The essence of protective liberalism, according to Chicherin's concept, is the reconciliation of the beginning of freedom with the beginning of power and law.
In his works on questions of state and law, Chicherin insistently argued the need for reforms in political life in Russia. In 1882-1883. he acted as the Moscow mayor, participated in the preparation of reforms, but his public call to them at an official meeting on May 16, 1883 was interpreted as a requirement of the constitution, displeased Alexander III, tsarist disgrace and Chicherin's dismissal from state activities.
The period of Russian liberalism emerging from the "underground" began during the reign of Emperor Alexander II. It was during this period that the three main groups of Russian liberals were finally formed:
Liberal officials who sought to use the power of the monarchy to carry out gradual reforms.
Various groups of the intelligentsia who sympathized with such actions of the authorities and were ready to cooperate with it.
A part of the intelligentsia, which was finally disillusioned with the possibility of an evolutionary path of development in Russia and was looking for contacts with revolutionary parties: first with the Narodnaya Volya, and then with the Marxists.
In the second half of the XIX century. the growth of liberal tendencies was promoted by a number of objective reasons. The most important of these was the impact of the consequences of the French Revolution of 1848, which significantly revived the attacks of the left-wing radical forces of Russia on the government, openly calling for a violent seizure of power and a revolutionary reorganization of society "from below". “By the end of the reign of Nicholas I,” wrote Chernyshevsky in a letter to Herzen, “all people who sincerely and deeply love Russia came to the conviction that only by force can human rights for the people be wrested from the tsarist power, that only those rights are lasting, which have been won and that what is easily given is easy and taken away. "
Another important reason that influenced the growth of liberalism was the inglorious Crimean War (1853-1855), which showed the backwardness and weakness of the state-serf system of Russia in front of the capitalist developing countries, and as a result, the undermining of internal forces and discontent that engulfed all strata of society. , besides, the complete isolation of Russia in the international arena.
An important circumstance was the accession, after the death of Nicholas I (1855), to the throne of his successor Alexander II, which meant the end of the despotic regime and the onset of a new era - the "era of great reforms", the need for which was equally felt and desired by the government and society. These and other circumstances pushed the government and the tsar to liberalize the entire social system.
"Upstairs" liberal tendencies in the 60-80s. XIX century were supported by the Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich and the Grand Duchess Elena Pavlovna, the chairman of the State Council D.N. Bludov. Minister of Internal Affairs S.S. Lansky, close to the emperor A.Ya. Rostovtsev, Minister of War D.A. Milyutin and others. This list will, of course, be incomplete, if not to mention Alexander II the Liberator himself. The first decisive steps towards liberal reforms "from above" were made by the emperor himself, when, in the Manifesto on the conclusion of the Paris Peace (on the occasion of the end of the Crimean War on March 19, 1856), he identified four directions for the future renovation of Russia:
Improvement of its internal improvement;
Assertion of truth and mercy in legal proceedings;
Creation of conditions for the development of education and any useful activity;
Protection of everyone under the canopy of laws, for all equally fair.
Later, in a conversation with the noble deputies in Moscow, discussing the problem of the abolition of serfdom and the emancipation of the peasants, Alexander II expressed the idea that "over time this should happen ... it is much better for it to happen from above than from below."
Leo Tolstoy wrote: "... who did not live in 1956 in Russia, he does not know what life is." The word "thaw" was named by F.I. Tyutchev the new policy of Alexander II. The emperor ordered to close the strict Buturlinsky censorship committee, which for eight years constrained publishers with all kinds of bans. At the behest of Alexander, the restriction on the number of students at universities was canceled. The departure of Russian citizens abroad was allowed. The powerful dignitaries of the Nikolaev era were dismissed: the Minister of Internal Affairs D.G. Bibikov, Minister of Foreign Affairs K.V. Nesselrode, Minister of War V.A. Dolgorukov, chief manager of railways P.A. Kleimnikhel, manager of the Third Section L.V. Dubelt and others.
In response to reproaches for this step, Alexander simulated ingenuity replied that his father "was a genius, and he needed only diligent performers, and I am not a genius ... I need smart advisors." Emperor Alexander Nikolaevich initiated not only the abolition of serfdom, but also many other reforms: judicial, rural, military, which literally pushed the country towards a constitution.
The result of the judicial reform was the creation of a new system of courts and legislation. The principle of the independence of judges from the administration was taken as the basis of legal proceedings. They were appointed by the king or the senate for life, their removal was allowed only at their own will or by a court decision. Lawsuits became transparent, public and adversarial. The institute of lawyers was introduced, the jury was established. The decision of the controversial issue now depended not on the official, but on the interpretation of the law through a public court procedure.
The regulations on zemstvo institutions looked like this. Zemsky institutions - provincial and district assemblies and councils - were created on the basis of free elections held every three years. All voters were divided into three groups or curia: the first - the peasants (the property qualification rule did not apply to them), the second curia - the owners of at least 200 acres of land each (mainly landlords), the third - the owners of real estate worth from 500 to 3 thousand rubles. rubles (primarily merchants). First, the district assembly was elected, then the provincial assembly.
Zemstvos were in charge of local monetary and in-kind obligations, property, roads, hospitals, issues of public education, zemstvo mail, charitable institutions, providing the population with food, insurance, and economic support for prisons.
However, on the constitutional "threshold" the tsar stumbled. It seemed to him that the reforms carried out are quite enough for the foreseeable future. However, these reforms were half-hearted and failed to guarantee the rights and freedoms of broad sections of the population. The government's reluctance to accelerate the pace of transformation in the country pushed the liberals to the forces of the revolution. In 1878. in Kiev, even a conspiratorial meeting of the constitutional liberals headed by Petrunkevich with a group of Narodnaya Volya terrorists took place. The authorities did not pay the slightest attention to this alarming symptom - at the expense of the liberals, the revolutionary movement in the country could have grown enormously.
In 1881. Emperor Alexander II, in order to ease the public tension caused by dissatisfaction with the government's policy and aggravated by the terror of the People's Will, instructed the Minister of Internal Affairs M.T. Loris-Melikov to prepare a draft constitution. The king was already ready to sign this project when March 1, 1881. a terrorist bomb cut his life off.
The reign of Emperor Alexander III (1881 - 1894) became a kind of historical pause - a time of comprehension of the great transformations of the previous reign and a time of reaction, which replaced the reformist onslaught of the previous 20 years. In historical science, this time was called the era of counterreforms.
The new government course was visibly different from the reform activities of Alexander II and his inner circle. The main reason for the sharp change in government policy in the early 80s. XIX century. was in a tense internal political situation caused by the terrorist activities of the People's Will and, above all, the murder of Alexander II.
Alexander III's attempts to "freeze" reformist tendencies and sentiments in Russia led to tragic consequences for the government and society. The liberal intelligentsia grew closer to the revolutionaries, while the influence of the conservatives in the government camp grew.
Representatives of Russian liberalism in the XIX century. much more often it was necessary to criticize the actions of the authorities than to actively participate in their policies. Even the most liberal-minded autocrats (such as Alexander II) were wary of drawing them into government affairs. As a result, the liberals themselves began to see themselves primarily as bearers of knowledge, theorists, called upon by their ideas to destroy the age-old foundations of Russian despotism.
One of the consequences of the liberal reforms of Alexander II was the intensive economic development of Russia, which brought the large industrial bourgeoisie and the proletariat onto the historical arena. The new historical situation demanded reforms.
The most obvious for the government of Alexander III, and then Nicholas II, was the need for reforms in the financial and economic sphere. Historical science connects these reforms with the name of Sergei Yulievich Witte. Nevertheless, the successful implementation of S.Yu. Witte's reforms in the financial and economic sphere could not soften the accumulated socio-political contradictions. In this situation, the last attempt in the history of tsarist Russia was made to attempt liberal reforms, which was carried out under the conditions of the revolution.
After July 15, 1904, the Governor-General of Vilna, Prince P.D. Svyatopolk-Mirsky, of whom everyone who knew him spoke with respect. A cultured, educated person, he promised to pursue a policy that listens to the voice of the public, the opinion of which he, in his words, always reckoned with; sought to defuse the thickening political atmosphere. Throughout the autumn of 1904, which in the political history of Russia received the paradoxical name "political spring", "spring of Svyatopolk-Mirsky", Witte took part in all actions, demonstratively supported Svyatopolk-Mirsky.
On December 12, 1904, an imperial decree was published, providing for the implementation of a number of reforms. Its provisions related to: religious tolerance, freedom of speech and reform of press laws; revision of labor legislation. The development of the measures outlined in it was entrusted to the Committee of Ministers.
Witte published his anti-communal platform (December 1904 "A note on the peasant business"). He demanded to make a "persona" out of the peasant by equalizing the peasants in rights with other estates. At the same time, it was about all rights, including property rights, in other words, about leaving the community with the allocation of land.
In the community, Witte saw not only an obstacle to the development of agricultural production, but also one of the forms of a revolutionary threat, since it brought up a disregard for the right of property. He argued in his memoirs that he saw the essence of the peasant question precisely in the replacement of communal ownership of land by individual, and not in the lack of land, and therefore, not in the compulsory alienation of landlord estates.
However, apart from the abolition in 1903 of the mutual responsibility for the payment of direct taxes, Witte did little in his ministerial post against the community. But in the activities of the Conference on the needs of the agricultural industry, chaired by Witte, the community was dealt a strong blow, however, purely theoretical. Witte believed that if the Conference were allowed to finish the work, then much that happened later would be eliminated. The peasantry probably would not have been so agitated by the revolution.
Meanwhile, January 1905 was approaching, and the Russo-Japanese war was already going on. The defeats demonstrated the weakness of power. The liberals considered that tsarism would have to pay for a lost war, as in 1861, with reforms. To achieve these reforms, and above all the constitution, they not only intensified propaganda in zemstvo and intellectual circles, but also decided to attempt to coordinate actions with the revolutionaries.
On January 17, 1905, Nicholas II, who turned to Witte and other ministers for advice, ordered him to make a meeting of the ministers on "measures necessary to calm the country" and on possible reforms beyond those provided for by the decree of December 12, 1904.
As the autumn revolutionary events intensified, Witte intimidated the tsar and his entourage and proposed to create a Cabinet of Ministers for salvation, to transfer the peasant question to the future Duma. Witte responded to the revolutionary events of the first days of October 1905 with a speech that "a strong government is needed to fight anarchy" and a note to the tsar with a program of liberal reforms. A document drawn up under Witte's direction was issued and known as the October 17th Manifesto.
Manifesto of Nicholas II, calling on all "truly Russian people" to unite around the throne and to rebuff those who want to undermine the ancient foundations of autocracy;
Rescript to the new Minister of Internal Affairs A.G. Bulygin to work out the "advisory" status of the Duma (Svyatopolk-Mirsky resigned immediately after "Bloody Sunday");
A decree to the Senate, ordering to accept for consideration petitions handed or sent to him from various segments of the population.
October 19, 1905 a decree appeared on the creation of the first united Council of Ministers in the history of Russia, at the head of which Witte was put. The Council by no means became, as promised to Tsar Witte, a cabinet in the European sense. He was responsible not to the Duma, but to the tsar. And the ministers were appointed by the king, and in all matters that the Council considered, the king had the last word. Now after his appointment, Witte entered into negotiations with representatives of the liberal community about their entry into the government. The negotiations ended in nothing, turning out to be a political maneuver of tsarism, repeated several times later by Witte's successors.
The Council of Ministers, meeting under the leadership of Solsky, not without severity condemned the decree of February 18, 1905. the tsar was, as it were, accused of liberalism. Witte's active participation in that meeting did not remain without consequences: the tsar closed the agricultural conference and the conference of ministers (for the "united" government) headed by Witte. This meeting marked the beginning of the end of the latest reform effort. In the fall of 1905 (in October), Stolypin's candidacy for the post of Minister of Internal Affairs was first discussed at Witte's meeting with "public figures".
The liberal movement was unable to soften the acuteness of social and political contradictions in the country and even involuntarily exacerbated the struggle between reaction and revolution, taking the side of the latter. The coming revolutionary storm swept away not only the conservatives, but also the liberals themselves.
History has shown the inertia and heterogeneity of Russian society, which is always not ready for the most anticipated reforms, and that the process of reforming society should be constant, aimed at improving social relations, and not an attempt to overcome the crisis caused by the inconsistency of the level of socio-political development society to the requirements of the time.
The experience of Russian liberalism in the 19th century. showed the need for careful implementation of any reforms and taking into account the interests of all parties. Many of the tasks of liberal transformations that faced Russia back in the 19th century have not been resolved even today, so the ideas expressed by the theorists of liberalism for the most part remain modern, especially now that Russia is choosing a model for its further development.
9. List of used literature :
1. History of Russia from antiquity to the present day, ed. M.N. Zueva, M., 1997
2. B. G. Litvak. The coup of 1861 in Russia, M., 1991
3. V.V. Sogrin. Liberalism in Russia. M., 1997
4. History of the Fatherland: people, ideas, solutions. Essays on the history of Russia in the 9th - early 20th century / Comp .: S.V. Miropenko. M., 1991.
5. Leontovich V.V. The history of liberalism in Russia. M., 1995.
6.P.A. Zayonchkovsky. Russian autocracy at the end of the XIX century, M., 1970
7. Yu. P. Titov. History of State and Law of Russia, M., 1997
