Conservative direction. Conservatives, liberals and radicals of the second quarter of the 19th century

25.09.2019

The second half of the 19th century in Russian history is of particular importance for understanding the evolution of social thought and the origins of various social movements. Another milestone in the history of the development of Russian society was the abolition of serfdom. The development of capitalism has intensified public and social processes in Russia. However, the development of capitalism took place under conditions of absolutism. It was characterized by: lack of political freedoms, arbitrariness of the bureaucracy, class restrictions, various forms of social oppression. At the same time, the ability of the autocracy to self-reform appeared. This left an imprint on the socio-economic development of the country, causing its complexity and inconsistency. Therefore, the emergence of various social movements, organizations and ideologies is a natural process and is explained by many objective reasons:

firstly, this is due to the emergence of new classes, social groups, which were characterized by specific and often opposing interests that differed from the interests of the old ruling classes;
secondly, the reason for the emergence of social movements in Russia was the limited reforms carried out by the tsarist government, which led to an aggravation of contradictions in society. The development of the social movement was facilitated by a crisis of faith in the tsar and autocracy among the intelligentsia;
thirdly, a favorable environment for the emergence of various societies was the expansion of openness in the country, the first steps towards the revival of the rule of law.

Major social movements of the 19th century in Russia

In the middle of the 19th century, three main social movements emerged in Russia: noble-conservative, bourgeois-liberal and revolutionary-democratic.

The influential social movement was the noble-conservative one. For many decades, the word “conservative” was considered almost a dirty word. The Dictionary of the Russian Language defined the word “conservatism” as “commitment to everything old, outdated.” It turns out that “conservatism” is a broad concept; it is not associated with the interests of a certain class of the estate, but protects the interests of everyone who is looking for a way to renew society using the least bloody methods. N. Berdyaev in the article “The Fate of Russian Conservatism” writes that conservatism, which began in Russia with Slavophilism... “does not exist as an ideological direction... Russian “conservatism is impossible because it has nothing to protect.”

Among the conservatives there were ideologists of stagnation who defended loyalty to the past. But there were conservatives for whom turning to the past was the basis of existence. Conservatives defended and protected the stability of society. Among the ideologists of the first type were N.M. Karamzin, S.S. Uvarov, N.K. Pobedonostsev and others. The second type includes Slavophiles, “authors of the Russian idea.” In this case, one should keep in mind the relativity and conditionality of the proposed division.

The great writer and historian N. Karamzin, author of “History of the Russian State,” defended the monarchical system, which most fully corresponded to morality, enlightenment and the existing level of development of Russia. “Autocracy is the soul, its life... Experiments are not suitable.” (Karamzin N.M. Selected articles and letters // Reader on the history of Russian social thought of the 19th-20th centuries - M.: Nauka, 1994. - P. 24). Monarchy meant the sole power of the autocrat, but his arbitrariness should be limited to governing the country on the basis of firm laws.

The tsar was perceived as the father of the family, the landowners were the trustees of the peasants. The liberation of the peasants is disastrous, since the fields will remain uncultivated, the peasants will drink and become violent. “The nobility and clergy, the Senate and the Synod, as the repository of laws, above all is the sovereign, the only legislator, the only source of authority. This is the foundation of the Russian monarchy" (Karamzin N.M. Note on ancient and new Russia // Liberation movement and social thought in Russia in the 19th century: Textbook / Edited by I.A. Fedosov. - M.: Higher School, 1991. – P. 37).

Conservatives believed in Russia's uniqueness and uniqueness. Thus, Secretary of State V.K. Pleve stated: “Russia has its own unique history and special system, and there is every reason to hope that Russia will be freed from the oppression of capital and the bourgeoisie and the struggle of classes” (Soloviev Yu.V. Autocracy and the nobility at the end of the 19th century . – L.: Lenizdat, 1973. – P. 295).

Ideological basis conservative trend the “theory of official nationality” appeared, created by the Minister of Education Count S. Uvarov back in the 30s and 40s of the 19th century. This theory was based on the triad - Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality. As N. Berdyaev asserts that ... “for the system of official nationality, primacy belongs to the principle of autocracy, while Orthodoxy and nationality were subordinated to it” (Berdyaev N.A. Origins and meaning of Russian communism. - M.: 1990. - P.25). By creating this concept, the autocracy sought to strengthen the power of the state and the devotion of the people.

The ideas of N.M. Karamzin were used by supporters of the unlimited power of the autocracy N.M. Katkov and K.P. Pobedonostsev. Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev - professor at Moscow University, chief prosecutor of the Synod, mentor and adviser to Alexander III - a man who became a symbol of autocracy, the embodiment of a chilling St. Petersburg bureaucrat. He was opposed to Alexander III's publication of a manifesto on the convening of the Zemsky Sobor, which would have meant the introduction of a constitutional monarchy in the country. K.P. Pobedonostsev is one of the reactionary conservatives, through whose fault the introduction of a constitutional monarchy was delayed in Russia by a quarter of a century. His monarchical views are based on religiosity. He believed that order in the country rests on faith. “If faith disappears, the state will perish.

The king, chosen by God, is called upon to protect the “child people” from harmful influences.” “Pobedonostsev believed in God, but lived under the hypnosis of the power of evil, believed in Evil, not Good. He considered good to be powerless, pathetic in its weakness,” noted N.A. Berdyaev.

Conservatives were skeptical about K.P. Pobedonostseva. “It is like frost: it prevents rotting; but nothing will grow with it. Not only is he not a creator; he's not even a reactionary...frost; I say watchman; an airless tomb." K.P. Pobedonostsev wrote that “history shows that the most significant, fruitful measures and transformations for the people came from the central will of state people” (Pobedonostsev K.P. The Great Lie of Our Time. - M.: Nauka, 1993. - P.61). Meanwhile, by the power of his influence on the monarch, he sought to prevent these statesmen from carrying out reforms.

Pobedonostsev is a supporter of the class privileges of the nobility and strong power. Still, he considered compliance with the law to be the most important value. “After all, the law,” he wrote, is, on the one hand, a rule, and on the other hand, a commandment” (Ibid. – p.61).

In the theoretical social thought of the conservative movement, the work of K.N. occupied a special place. Leontyev. The most significant work of K. Leontyev, containing his worldview, is “Byzantism and Slavism.” In it, he recognizes the special global role of Russia, which is possible while maintaining and strengthening the state monarchy. He rejects the constitution, universal suffrage, equality, bourgeois liberalism, and democracy.

The thinker was especially hated by the labor movement and the revolutionary-democratic struggle of the intelligentsia. He combined his deep hatred of the “rotten” West with love for the traditions of monarchism and feudalism. He is looking for options for “saving” Russia from bourgeois principles. Monarchy, class, church are the basis of civilization for K. Leontyev. “Only three things are strong and powerful for us: Byzantine Orthodoxy, our tribal, boundless autocracy, and, perhaps, our rural land world” (Leontyev K. Byzantium and Slavism // Reader on the history of Russian social thought of the 19th-20th centuries - M .: Science, 1994. – P.249).

The great Russian thinker V. Solovyov assessed K. Leontyev as “a principled and ideological conservative, an original and talented preacher of extremely conservative views.” K. Leontyev believed that the people should not interfere in state affairs.

Conservatism second half of the 19th century V. based on the ideas of the Slavophiles. Most Slavophiles were critical of the existing regime, advocated some freedoms, the abolition of serfdom, but were against the borrowing of Western political ideas. However, the main thing in their search was not so much the elimination of the vices of society, but the search for common ideas, the consent of the people and their spirituality.

The severity of the class struggle in the country contributed to constant fluctuations in the government. At this time, government liberalism was developing under the influence of the revolutionary struggle, and a theory of gradual reforms and peaceful resolution of social problems was being developed. The historian, professor at Moscow and St. Petersburg universities K.D. contributed to the development of this theory. Kavelin.

In the second half of the 1850s, he drew up a whole program of “what we should have differently.” This program concerned, according to him, both central and local government, the courts, and the participation of elected officials in government affairs. At the same time, Kavelin wrote: “I believe in the absolute necessity of absolutism for present-day Russia, but it must be progressive and enlightened” (Shapiro A.L. Russian historiography from ancient times to 1917: Textbook. - M.: Culture , 1993. – P.401).

In the liberal circles of the government, a prominent role was played by the Minister of War D.A. Milyutin and the Minister of State Property P.A. Valuev. They played an active role in carrying out bourgeois reforms in the 60s and 70s. XIX century. At the same time, among the conservative nobility, dissatisfied with the reform of 1861, there was a desire to create a noble constitution that would secure their main role in the life of the country, the dictatorship of the old ruling class. Under the leadership of the Minister of Internal Affairs M.T. Loris-Melikov, a draft constitution was developed. Alexander II approved it, but the constitution was banned by Loris-Melikov himself.

Reasons for the ban

Firstly, because the downtrodden and backward population of Russia was not ready for a constitutional order. K.D. Kavelin believed that “Society must first be reborn so that political guarantees do not turn into theater scenery"(Kavelin K.D. Our mental structure: Articles on the philosophy of Russian history and culture. - M.: Pravda, 1989. - P. 153).

Secondly, the negative attitude towards the constitution was determined by the peculiarities historical moment. Constitutionalism came out under the banner of noble opposition to the autocracy, to protect the class interests of the nobility, so the liberals opposed it.

Thirdly, the autocracy in alliance with the bureaucracy was able to implement reforms.

Reactionary transformations 1880-1890 called counter-reforms. They did not achieve their goal, but at the same time they strained relations between the government and society. Progressive statesmen considered it necessary to continue bourgeois reforms. On the other hand, a conservative opposition was maturing, which was always against reforms. This opposition put forward demands to return to the old order. The progressive direction was expressed in the reform project of Count M.T. Loris-Melikov, the Minister of Internal Affairs and Chief of the Corps of Gendarmes.

The essence of this project was the gradual reduction of redemption payments, the elimination of temporary obligatory relations, the transformation of the tax system, the establishment of credit for peasants (Anthology on the history of the USSR, 1861–1917: Textbook for pedagogical institutes / Edited by V.G. Tyukavkin. - M.: Enlightenment, 1990. – P.194).

So, the main goal of the conservative movement is to preserve autocracy in the country, the social structure, law and order that have developed over centuries of history. The ossification and immobility of the autocracy held back the capitalist development of the country. Hence the inconsistency, the vacillation from progressive reforms to counter-reforms.

The author of the theory was S.S. Uvarov, President of the Russian Academy of Sciences and Minister of Public Education. He considered Orthodoxy, autocracy, and nationality to be the foundations of Russian life. Autocracy is the unity of the tsar and the people, Orthodoxy is the traditional orientation of the Russian person towards public interest. Nationality is the unity of the people united around the tsar without dividing it into nobles, peasants, and townspeople. Theorists of the conservative trend were historians N. Ustryalov, M. Pogodin, writers N. Grech, M. Zagoskin. They proved the exclusivity of Russia's historical path and considered it the only correct one.

Liberal movement. Westerners and Slavophiles.

Westerners believed:

· Russia became a civilized state thanks to the reforms of Peter I
· Russia needs to develop in line with Western civilization
· A constitutional monarchy should emerge in Russia.

Representatives: historians T. Granovsky, S. Solovyov, lawyer K.D. Kavelin, writers P.V. Annenkov, I.S. Turgenev.

Slavophiles believed:

· Russia has an identity that is reflected in the state, social structure, and in the Orthodox faith
· They assessed the activities of Peter I negatively; his reforms became the cause of troubles in Russia.
· The main task is to return Russia to its old, original state
· Preservation of autocracy, but the people have the right to express their opinions through an advisory body - the Zemsky Sobor.

Representatives: A.S. Khomyakov, Kireevsky brothers, Aksakov brothers, Yu.F. Samarin,

A.I. Koshelev.

General features:

· Negative attitude towards serfdom, the omnipotence of officials, the suppression of individual rights and freedoms.
· The hope that the reforms will be initiated by the supreme power, relying on the support of the progressive public.
· Reforms will be gradual and cautious.
· Confidence in the possibility of peaceful implementation of reforms.
· Faith in Russia, in the possibility of its rapid and confident movement towards prosperity

S5 SG v3 type

Revolutionary movement

Mugs from the 20s and 30s. Moscow University.

1827 - circle of the Kritsky brothers at Moscow University.
1833 - N.V. circle Stankevich
1834 - circle of A.I. Herzen and N.P. Ogareva. All the mugs were open.

The revolutionary movement arose in the 40-50s of the 19th century.

The Cyril and Methodius Society arose in Ukraine (1846-1847). The society advocated the abolition of serfdom, class privileges, and a federation of Slavic republics. Supporters of moderate measures were led by historian N.I. Kostomarov, adherents of decisive measures - T.G. Shevchenko.

The ideologists of the Russian revolutionary movement were A.I. Herzen, N.P. Ogarev. In the 50s, Herzen (1812-1870) developed the basic principles of “Russian communal socialism” or “peasant socialism”: in Russia there is a cell of socialism - peasant community, in which there is an equal right to land, communal self-government, natural collectivism. The peasants must be freed from serfdom and the autocracy abolished.

V.G. Belinsky (1811-1848) clearly expressed his revolutionary ideas in his “Letter N.V. Gogol" (1847): abolition of serfdom, corporal punishment, strict implementation of laws.

In 1845 in St. Petersburg around M.V. Butashevich - Petrashevsky formed a circle. On Fridays, like-minded people gathered, condemned serfdom and autocracy, and studied socialist teachings. In 1849, the circle was crushed, 39 Petrashevites were arrested, 21 were sentenced to death, replaced by hard labor and exile.

Pyotr Yakovlevich Chaadaev wrote “Philosophical Letters”, in which he criticized Russian reality. He was declared crazy.

CHAPTER 1. CONSERVATISM AS A DIRECTION OF SOCIAL MOVEMENT

Before moving on to the study of the conservative movement directly in the Russian Empire of the 2nd half of the 19th century, it is necessary to consider what “conservatism” is in general, when it originated, and what its basic principles are based on. For a long time in Soviet and Russian historiography, conservatives were portrayed as staunch opponents of progress and any changes in political, cultural and other spheres of public life, striving to turn history back. This point of view is obviously one-sided.

So, what is conservatism? According to the Soviet interpretation: Conservatism (from the French Conservatisme - I protect, preserve), commitment to the old, obsolete and hostility to everything new, advanced 1. Accordingly: conservative (from the French Conservator - guardian), adherent of conservative views, opponent of progress and change 2.

Modern encyclopedist scientists give a more accurate and detailed explanation of this concept:

Conservatism is a political ideology that advocates the preservation of the existing social order, primarily moral and legal relations embodied in the nation, religion, marriage, family, property 3.

The term “conservatism” was first used by the French writer François Chateaubriand (1768–1848), who founded the magazine “Conservator,” which expressed the views of supporters of the political restoration of France after the Great French Bourgeois Revolution of 1789–1799. Conservatism of that time represented the ideology of feudal-aristocratic reaction and criticism of the ideas of the Enlightenment. In which they sought “protection” from the social upheavals that occurred in Europe due to the collapse of feudal relations.

The birth date of conservative ideology is considered to be 1790, when the work of the English thinker Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797) “Reflections on the Revolution in France” was published, in which he was extremely hostile to the events in France, arguing that “no generation has the right subject to violent destruction of institutions created by the efforts of previous generations" 1 . The main question of his work was why the English revolution gave birth to freedom in society, and the French one degenerated into terrible tyranny. This book has become a kind of “bible” of conservatism.

Other leading theorists of conservatism in the 18th and 19th centuries were Louis de Bonald (“The Theory of Political and Religious Power”), Joseph de Maistre (“Discourses on France”), Samuel Coleridge and others.

In their works they developed the following general provisions of this direction of social thought of the mid-late 18th - early 19th centuries:

Revolution brings only destruction, and does not liberate people. It is more likely that revolution controls man than man controls revolution.

The entire course of the history of society is predetermined by God, therefore, man cannot create any fundamentally new social institutions: “Man is capable of changing everything in the sphere of his activity, but he does not create anything both in the physical and moral spheres” 2.

The existing social relations are complex and too confusing, so a sharp transition from them to a simple, rational structure is impossible and harmful. The improvement of man and society must be carried out gradually, through upbringing and proper education within the framework of already existing and proven institutions: “The art of reforming governments does not consist in overthrowing them and rebuilding them on the basis of ideal theories” 1.

Any human attempts to interfere with the natural course of development of society can only bring harm. Therefore, any changes can only be gradual and concern only certain aspects of social and political life.

Traditions and the “age-old wisdom of the people” have an advantage over any philosophical and political theories formulated by the mind of an individual, since they are supported by the experience of previous generations: “Whatever judgments or prejudices may be, they are good because they are stable” (Antoine de Rivarol, 1753- 1801) 2 . The mind of an individual cannot cover the entire sphere of existing problems, in matters of politics and social order, and is doomed to error. This thesis is emphasized in his work by E. Burke, “The mind of an individual is limited, and it is better for the individual to take advantage of the common bank and capital of nations accumulated over the centuries” 3 . His idea is confirmed by J. de Maistre, who points out that “experience and history almost always contradict abstract theories” 4 .

Any laws are effective only if they are based on moral and religious norms, and are of an unwritten nature: “There are many laws that need to be followed, but which do not need to be written down” 5.

Conservatism at the end of the 18th century became a kind of reaction to the radicalism of the Great French Bourgeois Revolution, therefore many of the original ideas of conservatism: the unlimited and peculiar cult of monarchical power, clericalism, the inviolability of class privileges, were subsequently rejected. But the ideological basis: respect for the state, norms and traditions of the people, allowing only gradual changes in society, criticism of egalitarian psychology; found their continuation in the ideology of neoconservatism. Moreover, in the process of its development during the 19th century, many of the provisions of classical conservatism were adopted by liberal ideologists (for example: the idea of strong, centralized state power), while at the same time a number of ideas that were initially liberal became an integral part of conservative ideology (freedom market, limiting government intervention, etc.).

Another consequence of the development of conservative ideas was the stratification of the movement into two large layers, united only by the common function of preserving traditional social orders and structures. Some supported the established system, in its unchanged form (in those countries where conservatives had real power and tried to preserve it). Others focused on eliminating political forces hostile to them, and restoring the former ones (where they did not have power, but represented a real opposition force). In this form, conservatism is presented both as a political ideology of preserving existing orders, and as an appeal to the lost, “destroyed” orders of previous generations.

It should be noted that modern researchers offer a large number of classifications and typologies of conservatism. For example, A.A. Galkin and P.Yu. Rakhshmir distinguishes three types of conservatism: traditionalist, reformist and revolutionary 1.

By traditionalist, the authors understand the conservatism of the early 19th century, and attribute to it the views of J. de Maistre, F. de Chateaubriand, L. de Bonald. Reformist (moderate liberal) conservatism is a movement of the mid-to-late 19th century that adopted a number of liberal ideas. Characterized by the desire to combine a fundamental orientation towards tradition, with moderate adaptation to changes occurring in society. Revolutionary conservatism arose at the beginning of the 20th century, within the framework of the traditionalist movement and the movement of the so-called Conservative Revolution in European countries in the first quarter of the century.

Thus, European conservatism, over its more than two-hundred-year history, has gone through a number of stages, each of which significantly influenced the ideology of the movement. Only two basic principles, identified by the American political scientist D. Allen, remained unchanged: “denial of revolution and rejection of any theories proposing a radical reorganization of society” 1 . These two ideas unite conservatives of all times into a single socio-political movement.

CHAPTER 2. CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT DURING THE REIGN OF ALEXANDER II

Alexander II Nikolaevich, the eldest son of Emperor Nicholas I and Empress Alexandra Feodorovna, was born on April 17, 1818 in Moscow. Heir to the throne since 1825, Tsarevich since 1831. General of Infantry (1844) 1.

On February 18, 1855, after the death of Emperor Nicholas I, Alexander II ascended the throne, under very difficult circumstances. The first years of the reign were devoted to the completion of the Crimean (Eastern) War, and the elimination of the reactionary orders of Nicholas's time.

The Crimean War exposed all the internal ulcers of the Russian Empire, and forced the government to begin socio-political reforms. Announcing the conclusion of peace with a special manifesto, the emperor ended it with a specific wish for the internal renewal of Russia: “Let its internal improvement be established and improved; Let truth and mercy reign in her courts; May the desire for forgiveness and all useful activities develop everywhere and with renewed vigor” 2 . This phrase expressed the promise of reforms, the need for which was recognized by both the government and Russian society, among which discontent was increasingly brewing due to the understanding of the backwardness of the Russian state from more advanced countries Western Europe.

Another reason for the growing social movement was popular unrest: among privately owned peasants, the urban poor and working people. And although they were not of such a massive scale as the 17th – 18th centuries, they nevertheless forced the government to soften the most odious aspects of serfdom and create an ideological justification for the existing socio-political system. Gradually, with the growing crisis of the feudal-serf system, which manifested itself primarily in the reduction in the export of Russian grain abroad, the increase in peasant duties (corvée and quitrent) to the extreme limits and the direct crisis of the nobility as a class, the government began to increasingly understand the inevitability of the reform course and, first of all, in all, the need to abolish the institution of serfdom.

The social movement in Russia in the 2nd half of the 19th century was characterized by the presence of three ideological directions: radical, liberal and conservative.

Russian conservatism, throughout the 19th century, relied on theories proving the indestructibility of autocracy. The main theorists of this principle in the 1st half of the 19th century were N.M. Karamzin and S.S. Uvarov.

Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin (1766 - 1826) compiled in 1811, at the request of Grand Duchess Catherine Pavlovna, “A Note on Ancient and New Russia in its Political and Civil Relations,” where he expressed the views of the most far-sighted part of the conservative opposition on the inviolability and saving role of autocracy as basics of Russian public order and described the state of the Russian Empire 1.

The Minister of Public Education, Count Sergei Semenovich Uvarov (1786 - 1855) put forward the “Theory of Official Nationality” based on three basic principles: Autocracy, Orthodoxy, Nationality. The question of the time of the appearance of the Uvarov triad remains open to this day, but it is believed that it was first formulated in 1832 in a report on an audit of Moscow University, although its basis appeared earlier 2.

With the accession to the throne of Emperor Alexander II, especially in the first decade of his reign, Russian conservatism experienced a period of crisis. This is due, first of all, to the fact that government policy has completely ceased to be based on any ideological system. The autocracy used both liberal and conservative measures to achieve the tasks facing the country at that time: maintaining the absolute power of the monarch and the existing system of governance, as well as carrying out reforms that were bourgeois in nature. This led to constant fluctuations in the government's course; the liberal periods of 1857–1866 and 1880–1881 were replaced by a conservative reaction in 1866–1879 and 1881.

At the end of the 50s, the ideologists of Nikolaev's time (F.V. Bulgarin, N.I. Grech, O.I. Senkovsky) left the political scene, and conservatives were gradually pushed back from the highest echelons of power 1 . And in the views of former admirers of conservative ideology (F.I. Tyutchev, M.P. Pogodin) changes occurred, indicating their rapprochement with supporters of urgent reforms. Conservatives of the new wave (A.M. Bezobrazov, S.I. Maltsev, V.V. Apraksin, etc.) had to look for more effective arguments to put forward their concept of the further development of the country, based on the principles of conservative reformism 2.

Start liberal reforms and the transition of the autocracy to a policy of accelerated modernization of socio-economic and legal relations led to the fact that supporters of conservatism found themselves in the unusual position of opponents “on the right” to the reform initiatives of the government of Alexander II 3 .

A qualitatively new period has begun in the history of Russian conservative thought. Conservatives of the era of reforms continued the desire of their predecessors to preserve the basic traditions of state and public life in Russia. The main ones were unlimited autocracy, the identity of the Russian people (including the peasant community) and Orthodoxy. However, even before the emperor acknowledged the need for reforms, alarming sentiments began to spread among the nobility. Conservative publicists have made a number of attempts to defend the uniqueness and identity of Russia as a state. So in 1856, the landowner E. Ladyzhensky wrote about the charity of patriarchal relations between the landowner and the peasants. He was supported by the Uman landowner G. Blank, who argued that Russia was saved from the social disasters that were rampant in Western Europe only thanks to serfdom, and the care of the nobles ensured the welfare and moral health of the peasants 1 .

Protection of the foundations of the state structure. The theory of "official nationality". Restriction of the activities of the press and educational institutions in the 30-40s. Conservative direction in the social movement of the second half of the 19th century. Supporters of "protective principles".

Submitting your good work to the knowledge base is easy. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Protective (conservative) direction (conservatism)

Protective (conservative) direction (conservatism) - a direction of social thought and a political movement focused on the protection of traditional foundations government system, which denies radical change. In Russia, conservatism was most manifested in issues of government, defending the inviolability of autocratic power.

Protective alternative

The theory of "official nationality". The Decembrist cause had a strong influence on the entire government activity of the new Emperor Nicholas I. For himself, he concluded that the entire nobility was in an unreliable mood. Noticing that large number people associated with revolutionary unions were from the nobility; he did not trust the nobility, suspecting them of striving for political dominance. Nicholas did not want to rule with the help of the noble class; he tried to create a bureaucracy around himself and rule the country through obedient officials. Having punished the Decembrists, Nicholas showed his readiness to begin reforms provided that the autocratic system remained unchanged, but he intended to carry them out without the participation of social forces. In turn, the nobility distanced itself from the bureaucracy of the new reign. It was intimidated by the Decembrist cause and itself withdrew from public activities. There was an alienation between the government and society. The government believed that the fermentation of the 20s. came from superficial education and free-thinking, borrowed from foreign teachings, so attention should have been paid to “education” younger generation, to give strength in education to “truly Russian principles” and remove from it everything that would contradict them. All state and public life was to be based on these same principles. To such primordial beginnings of Russian life, according to the ideologist of the reign of Nicholas, Minister of Public Education and Spiritual Affairs S.S. Uvarov, included “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality,” which formed the basis of the so-called theory of “official nationality,” which became the ideological expression of the protective direction.

But the main provisions of the above theory were formulated in 1811 by the historian N.M. Karamzin in his "Note on Ancient and New Russia". These ideas were included in the coronation manifesto of Emperor Nicholas I and subsequent legislation, justifying the need for the Russian state to have an autocratic form of government and serfdom, and with the addition of S.S. Uvarov had the concept of “nationality”. He considered the proclaimed triad “the guarantee of strength and greatness” of the Russian Empire. The concept of “nationality” was considered by S.S. Uvarov as an original feature of the Russian people, as a primordial commitment to tsarist autocracy and serfdom.

The essence of Uvarov’s idea of Russian life was that Russia is a completely special state and a special nationality, unlike the states and nationalities of Europe.

On this basis, it is distinguished by all the main features of national and state life: it is impossible to apply the demands and aspirations of European life to it. Russia has its own special institutions, with an ancient faith, it has preserved patriarchal virtues, little known to the peoples of the West. First of all, this concerned popular piety, the people’s complete trust in the authorities and obedience, simplicity of morals and needs. Serfdom retained much of what was patriarchal: a good landowner better protects the interests of the peasants than they could themselves, and the position of the Russian peasant better position Western worker.

S.S. Uvarov believed that the main political task was to contain the influx of new ideas into Russia. “Stable” serf Russia was contrasted with the restless West: “there” - riots and revolutions, “here” - order and peace. Writers, historians, and educators should have been guided by these ideas.

Restriction of the activities of the press and educational institutions in the 30-40s. The theory of "official nationality" became the main ideological weapon of conservatives. It was promoted in all educational institutions, on the pages of periodicals, in fiction and in religious instructions.

After the events of the 30s. (“cholera riots” that swept across the country, uprisings in military settlements, etc.) government of Nicholas I special attention turned to the periodical press, which provided strong impact on the people. On behalf of the emperor, an order was issued banning the publication of articles without the author's signature. Each edition was reviewed by two censors. The persecution of progressive-minded journalists and writers intensified.

Pressure on the press and school intensified in the 40s. under the influence of the peasant movement in the country. To reinforce the existing censorship, special committees were created to review published journals and secretly monitor “the spirit and direction of all works ... printing.” A period of censorship terror began, to which writers, editors and censors were subjected.

Upon accession to the throne, Nicholas I gave orders to the Minister of Public Education A.S. Shishkov on the revision of the charters of all educational institutions. The secondary and lower schools were removed from the jurisdiction of the universities and placed under the direct guidance of appointed trustees of the educational districts, who became obedient agents of the government program. Private educational institutions, which taught teaching more freely and more broadly, were subjected to the strictest government control; the opening of private boarding houses where there were state schools was prohibited. Now home teachers must pass preliminary tests and receive a certificate not only of their knowledge, but also of their " moral qualities". Foreigners who raised Russian children were not allowed to see them without special certificates of good behavior and piety.

Considering schools to be sufficiently protected from the actions of “destructive concepts,” Uvarov considered it important to pay attention to universities, breeding grounds for “willfulness and freethinking.” According to the charter adopted in 1835, universities lost a significant part of their rights and independence: they ceased to be scientific bodies, turning into educational institutions; the university court ceased to function; the minister received the right, regardless of the opinion of the council, to appoint professors. The inspector, who was supposed to supervise the morality of students, gained great influence at the university.

Ideologists of the theory of "official nationality". Interpreters and guides official theory were professors of Moscow University M.P. Pogodin, N.G. Ustryalov, S.P. Shvyrev, writers and publicists F.V. Bulgarin, N.I. Grech, N.V. Kukolnik and others. They argued that the country has the best order, which corresponds to all the canons of religion and “political wisdom.” In their opinion, serfdom retains much of what is patriarchal, although it needs to be partially improved. Landowners (good ones) protect the interests of the peasants better than they could do it themselves. The publication of the conservative trend was the magazine "Moskvityanin", published under the editorship of M.P. Weather.

M.P. Pogodin argued that there were no conditions for revolution in Russia. As arguments, he put forward the “beneficence” of serfdom and the absence of class hostility in the country. He believed that the history of Russia did not have a wide variety of events, like the West, but it was “rich in wise sovereigns,” “glorious deeds,” and “high virtues.” The historian proved the originality of autocracy, starting with Rurik. According to him, Russia established “true enlightenment” thanks to the adoption of Christianity from Byzantium. In addition, since the times of Peter the Great, Russia has borrowed a lot from Europe, but M.P. Pogodin regrets borrowing “misconceptions.” Now, he says, “it’s time to return it to the true principles of nationality,” with the establishment of which “Russian life will finally settle on the true path of prosperity, and Russia will assimilate the fruits of civilization without its errors.”

Another conservative, S.P. Shevyrev, contrasted the East (i.e. Russia and related Slavic countries) to the “decaying” West with its “poisonous” civilization. At the same time, the “healthy principles” that the West had to “borrow” from the East were, according to S.P. Shevyrev, in the spirit of Christian faith and humility. This concept was the basis of his scientific developments and is expressed in the article “A Russian’s View of the Education of Europe.”

The content of the works of N.I. Grecha, F.V. Bulgarina, N.V. The puppeteer had loyal feelings and sentiments, official patriotism, attacks against progressive writers and ideas. So, F.V. Bulgarin was skeptical about projects for the democratic reorganization of Russian life and relied on the tsar and the tsarist government as the initiators of Russia’s progress. Frightened by the performance of the Decembrists (there were many of his friends among those repressed by the authorities), he began to demonstrate with all his might his devotion to the regime - he gave a verbal portrait of the wanted V.K. Kuchelbecker, prepared several memos for the government on issues of literature and theater. First F.V. Bulgarin presented them to the governor-general and the general staff, and from mid-1826, after the creation of the III department, he began to address them there. He acted "as a volunteer informant, and not as a hired detective agent." The authorities highly valued his information activities and literary creativity. At the end of 1826, by decree of Tsar F.V. Bulgarin was enrolled in the staff of the Ministry of Public Education (with the rank of 8th grade) and, as A.Kh. Benckendorf in 1831, “was used at my discretion for the written part for the benefit of the service, and ... he carried out all orders with excellent diligence.” Since 1825 F.V. Bulgarin together with N.I. Grechem published the official "Northern Bee", the first private newspaper that had the right to print political news and until 1860 remained the mouthpiece of monarchism in the country. Nicholas I in 1848 considered this newspaper a publication distinguished by “good intentions and direction, completely consistent with the goals and types of government.”

But in the activities of F.V. Bulgarin also had positive aspects: he helped A.S. Griboyedov - published fragments from “Woe from Wit”, promoted his work in “Northern Bee”, helped him, temporarily imprisoned in a fortress after the Decembrist uprising. In "Northern Bee" M.Yu. highly praised "Hero of Our Time". Lermontov, contributing to the spread of the novel. Despite all his good intentions, Bulgarin came into conflict with the censorship over the ban on the publication of articles, and received reprimands from the tsar or high-ranking dignitaries for materials that had already been published.

In general, F.V. Bulgarin was to a large extent the creator of the worldview of the Nicholas era. Acting as an ideologist of the “petty bourgeois people,” he expressed the interests of the middle strata on which the government sought to rely: officials, the military, the provincial nobility, part of the merchant class and the bourgeoisie. Therefore, he received support from above, but at the same time was popular in the reading circles of Russian society.

Another representative of the conservative trend is N.I. Grech in the mid-20s. moved to the conservative camp, putting an end to liberal ideas. In the early 30s. he becomes co-editor (together with F.V. Bulgarin) of “Northern Bee”. In the minds of writers of subsequent generations, N.I. Grech was identified with F.V. Bulgarin. Indeed, they were united by conservative beliefs and proximity to the III Department. Thus, the approval of A.Kh. Benckendorff was called by N.I.’s brochure. Grech “Analysis of the essay entitled “Russia in 1839,” by the Marquise Custine (1844), in which N.I. Grech tried to refute the criticism of the Russian autocracy by the French writer A. de Custine.

N.I. responded to Grech’s 50th anniversary. Dobrolyubov with a satirical poem in which the hero of the day was called “a champion of lies and darkness.” Dobrolyubov was also the author of a pamphlet directed to Grech, where he criticized Grech for an article dedicated to the memory of Nicholas I.

The crisis of the theory of official nationality came in the years Crimean War(1853-1856), when, under the influence of defeats, the insolvency of the Nicholas system became obvious even to its supporters. But repetitions of this theory will be undertaken by the government of the Russian Empire later, during the period of strengthening of autocracy.

Conservative direction in the social movement of the second half of the 19th century. After the peasant reform of 1861, the social movement intensified in the country. The main goals of the conservatives boiled down to attempts to protect the government from the influence of liberal officials and to prevent restrictions on the interests of the nobility in the ongoing reforms of the 60-70s. To begin with, Alexander II removed the main participants in the development of peasant reform from the government, thereby hoping to reconcile the different classes. The position of the conservatives began to gradually strengthen. Attempt by D.V. Karakozov's influence on Emperor Alexander II led to increased influence of conservatives in the government.

Supporters of “protective principles” united around the heir to the throne, Alexander Alexandrovich. They advocated the return of pre-reform orders, understanding the needs of the nobility in the spirit of old serfdom. Their political aspirations were directed against further reforms and restrictions on the existing bourgeois legislation.

The largest representatives of conservatism in post-reform Russia were statesmen, writers, and philosophers, including P.A. Shuvalov, K.P. Pobedonostsev, M.N. Katkov, D.A. Tolstoy, V.P. Meshchersky, N.Ya. Danilevsky and others. They developed the ideas of M.P. Pogodina, S.P. Shevyreva, S.S. Uvarov. Russian conservatism was not institutionalized, because the authorities openly supported him.

A key figure in the government of Emperor Alexander II was a major representative of the conservative trend, an opponent of reforms, the head of the III department, Count P.A. Shuvalov. He became the king's closest adviser and exerted significant influence on domestic policy. Among contemporaries P.A. Shuvalov received the nickname “the second Arakcheev”, and for the concentration of great power in his hands - “Peter IV”.

The inspirer of the conservative movement was the publicist, publisher, critic, and formerly prominent liberal, M.N. Katkov. In 1863 he became the head of the newspaper Moskovskie Vedomosti. The once modest university newspaper has become an influential political organ. At the beginning of 1882 M.N. Katkov wrote to Alexander III, who had just ascended the throne, that his newspaper “not only reflected affairs, many things were done in it.” Katkov acquired his main political weight thanks to the uprising in the Kingdom of Poland. The recent abolition of serfdom, the preparation of zemstvo regulations and new judicial statutes, etc., caused a certain confusion in government circles. Taking advantage of the government's hesitation regarding Poland, M.N. Katkov showed himself to be a strong supporter of “energetic measures”: he advocated the complete subordination of Poland to the Russian Empire, which was approved by the Russian government.

All journalistic activities of M.N. Katkova was now devoted to the search for a “conspiracy against Russia,” the center of which, in his opinion, was in Poland. He convinces the reader that socialist teachings, nihilism, student unrest in the capitals, and separatist tendencies on the national outskirts were provoked by “the enemies of Russia.”

Since 1881, in the publications of M.N. Katkov's policy of Alexander III meets with full support and even shapes it. According to the historian, Moskovskie Vedomosti is turning into a kind of state department, in which various projects are being developed on various issues of domestic and foreign policy. During these years M.N. Katkov opposes jury trials and defends the privileges of the nobility in public life and self-government. The influential conservative accused the liberals of political unreliability, and his attacks bordered on political denunciation. Thus, satirist M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin was convinced that M.N. Katkov played a decisive role. According to many, the figure of M.N. Katkova became a grim symbol of political reaction.

Some representatives of the conservative trend had a great influence on the emperor and his inner circle. Among them, K.P. stood out. Pobedonostsev, chief prosecutor of the Synod, who taught law to the future emperors Alexander III and Nicholas II. Throughout his life he waged a stubborn struggle against revolutionary movement, was a determined opponent of the liberal reforms of the 60-70s, a supporter of autocracy based on the Orthodox Church. K.P. Pobedonostsev was the initiator of censorship persecution of representatives of progressive literature, police persecution of L.N. Tolstoy, as well as sectarianism. In the slightest concessions to public opinion, he saw the “death of Russia”, because royal power, from his point of view, was supposed to rise unattainably above society and the people. In the first months of the reign of Alexander III, K.P. Pobedonostsev made a lot of efforts to remove M.T. Loris-Melikova. Subsequently, he contributed to the return to government activities of Count D.A. Tolstoy, who was fired two years earlier under public pressure.

YES. Tolstoy (since 1882 - Minister of Internal Affairs), like K.P. Pobedonostsev, under Alexander III, enjoyed great influence: he was the leader of the development of “counter-reforms”, which expressed the goal of Alexander III’s activities, related to the establishment of autocratic power and the shaken state order. The fight against sedition ended in success: the revolutionary movement was suppressed and terrorist activities ceased. The revision of legislative acts from the time of Alexander II affected all aspects of state and public life and was aimed at strengthening the supervision and influence of the government in the sphere of court and public self-government, as well as strengthening and raising the authority of government power.

Security direction

The failure of the A I reforms and the threat of revolutionary upheavals after the Decembrist uprising caused an increase in conservative sentiments in Russian society. The government realized that the ideas and programs of the Decembrists had to be opposed with their own ideology. A major statesman of the Nicholas era, Minister of Public Education Count S.S., tried to solve this problem. Uvarov, who put forward a new government concept, which became an expression of the protective direction - the “theory of official nationality.” Uvarov wanted to combine the protective policy and strict discipline of Nicholas's reign with the development of education and culture. The guideline should have been three interconnected principles - “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality.” This formula emphasized the sacred nature of autocracy and paid special attention to the Orthodox Church, which had long supported royal power and educated the people in a spirit of patience and humility. According to Uvarov’s theory, it was the autocratic government that reflected the aspirations common people. Uvarov emphasized the fundamental difference between the historical path of Russia and Europe. Popular journalists Bulgarin and Grech, who published the newspaper “Northern Bee,” became the mouthpiece of government ideology.

Conservative-protective parties

The monarchical-traditionalist camp in the events of 1905-1907. supported right-wing parties and organizations that advocated the restoration and strengthening of the “original Russian principles.” They declared themselves defenders of the autocracy from revolutionary attacks and proclaimed classic imperial slogans: “For faith, the Tsar and the Fatherland!”, “Orthodoxy, Autocracy and Nationality!”, “Russia for the Russians!” The general name of the conservative-protective party is the Black Hundreds. The Black Hundreds preferred to call themselves “truly Russians,” “patriots,” and “monarchists.”

Security direction

Mid-20s of the XIX century. marked a sharp line in the history of the Russian social movement. The failure of Alexander I's reforms and the threat of revolutionary upheavals after the Decembrist uprising caused an increase in conservative sentiments in Russian society. Tsarism, which since the time of Peter I had led Russia along the path of Europeanization, began to view Europe as a source of a dangerous “revolutionary infection” that was shaking the strong, original foundations of the Russian state order.

The government realized that the ideas and programs of the Decembrists had to be opposed with their own ideology. A major statesman of the Nicholas era, Minister of Public Education Count S.S., tried to solve this problem. Uvarov, who put forward a new government concept, which became an expression of the protective direction - the “theory of official nationality” (the name was given by historians in the second half of the 19th century). A highly educated man, a freethinker in his youth, Uvarov set out to combine the protective policy and strict discipline of Nicholas's reign with the development of education and culture. The guideline for the development of Russian culture, according to Uvarov, should have been three interconnected principles - “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality.” This formula emphasized the sacred nature of autocracy and paid special attention to the Orthodox Church, which had long supported royal power and educated the people in a spirit of patience and humility.

It was autocratic power, according to Uvarov’s theory, that most deeply and fully reflected the aspirations of the common people. At the same time, Uvarov emphasized the fundamental difference between the historical path of Russia and Europe. The Minister of Public Education believed that education and culture, developing in line with the “official nationality,” would not shake the existing order in Russia and would harmoniously fit into its framework. Popular journalists F.V. became the mouthpiece of government ideology. Bulgarin and N.I. Grech, who published the newspaper "Northern Bee". The ideas of the “official nationality” found an echo in the work of the prolific playwright N.V. Puppeteer. The government concept was ideologically substantiated and developed in detail by Moscow University professor, historian M.P. Pogodin and philologist, specialist in Russian literature S.P. Shevyrev.

Shevyrev and Pogodin sharply contrasted Russia with the “rotting West”: the West is being shaken by revolutions, while calm reigns in Russia. This was connected, according to supporters of the official ideology, with the beneficial influence of autocracy and serfdom - the guardianship power of the autocrat and the patriarchal care of the landowner for his peasants provided Russia with social peace.

They declared themselves defenders of the autocracy from revolutionary attacks and proclaimed classic imperial slogans: “For faith, the Tsar and the Fatherland!”, “Orthodoxy, Autocracy and Nationality!”, “Russia for the Russians!” The general name of the conservative-protective party is the Black Hundreds. The Black Hundreds preferred to call themselves “truly Russians,” “patriots,” and “monarchists.”

The largest of the Black Hundred parties was the “Union of the Russian People,” created in November 1905 in St. Petersburg. By the spring of 1907, the Union assumed a leading role in the Black Hundred movement. By the end of 1907, the total number of Black Hundreds reached approximately 410 thousand people. Among the numerous leaders of the monarchist movement, the most famous was one of the founders of the “Union of the Russian People” V.M. Purishkevich (1870--1920).

A significant part of the leaders of the Black Hundreds belonged to the intelligentsia. These were teachers, doctors, lawyers, engineers. The Chairman of the Main Council of the “Union of the Russian People” was a pediatrician, doctor of medicine A.I. Dubrovin.

The charter of the “Union of the Russian People” emphasized that members of the Union could be “only natural Russian people of both sexes, of all classes and wealth,” i.e. The Union proclaimed itself a non-class, Russian national organization. The program expressed the social ideal of the party - a patriarchal class Russia led by an autocratic monarch. Orthodoxy was recognized as the basis of all Russian life and was state religion. Autocracy was considered unshakable, and the tsar as the highest truth, law and force.

The program on the national question contained a point about the unity and indivisibility of Russia: there could be no talk of any autonomy. It was proclaimed that “the Russian nation, as the gatherer of the Russian land and the organizer of the Russian state, is a sovereign nation, dominant and superior.” The main core of the Black Hundred ideology was anti-Semitism.

In terms of social composition, the “Union of the Russian People” was quite varied. The leadership was dominated by representatives of the intelligentsia, noble landowners, and clergy. Among the ordinary members there were many peasants, workers, urban bourgeoisie: small shopkeepers, merchants.

In the fight against the revolutionary movement, the Black Hundreds used both legal and illegal methods. The ideological position of the Black Hundreds was extremely simple: all the troubles of Russia come from revolutionary intellectuals and foreigners seeking to destroy the empire. They created fighting squads to protect order and law, which then became organizers of pogroms and individual terror.

Right-wing nationalists, as a rule, did not accept the October 17 Manifesto. The Black Hundreds had a negative attitude towards market-capitalist modernization, seeing in it a betrayal of the “special path” of Russian history, and opposed State Duma, proposing instead a legislative body in the person of the Zemsky Sobor consisting of representatives of “truly” Russian people.

Conservatives. The very concept of “conservatism” comes from the Latin word conservare - to protect, preserve. As an ideological and political direction, conservatism was born in Western Europe at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries as a reaction to the events of the Great french revolution and the preceding period of development of educational and liberal ideas. Theorists of European conservatism (E. Burke, J. de Maistre, etc.) in their works defended the values of the traditional foundations and institutions of social life, expressed anti-liberal and anti-revolutionary ideas about the illegality of human intervention in the organic structure of socio-political relations that had developed over centuries, about the criminality of any attempts to remake society in accordance with abstract theoretical schemes. They wrote about the need for a careful attitude (literally, “protection”) to the established “order of things,” which is superpersonal, divine, natural-social in nature.

The influence of Western European conservatism on the one hand, and the Orthodox philosophical tradition on the other, determined the emergence of conservative ideology in Russia in the first half of the 19th century. There is no doubt that elements of conservatism can be found in previous eras of Russian history. It is enough to mention the “Teaching” of Vladimir Monomakh, the concept of the “Third Rome” of Philotheus, the works of I. Peresvetov, V. Tatishchev, I. Pososhkov, M. Shcherbatov, the activities and political creativity of Ivan IV and the late Catherine II, the poetry of A. . Sumarokov and G. Derzhavin, etc. At the beginning of the 19th century. the development of conservative ideas was associated with the creativity and activities of the Russian historian N.M. Karamzin (1766--1826). Karamzin, in his historical writings, as well as in such journalistic works as “Note on Ancient and New Russia” (1811), “Opinion of a Russian Citizen” (1819), etc., substantiated the legitimacy of preserving the Orthodox-monarchical system of Russian life, spoke out against liberal reforms of the autocratic political system.

After the Decembrist uprising, the Russian government realized the need to create its own conservative-monarchist ideology, which was to be based on the principle of the inviolability of the autocratic state system. The author of such a protective ideology was Count S.S. Uvarov (1786-1855) - President of the Russian Academy of Sciences (in 1818-1855), Minister of Public Education under Nicholas I. Uvarov’s doctrine was called the “theory of official nationality.” In accordance with the theory, the primordial foundations of Russian life are Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality. The autocratic system, according to the count, most fully reflects the aspirations of Russian society. The principle of Orthodoxy not only emphasized special role Russian Orthodox Church in the life of the country, but also showed that Russian people are traditionally focused not on personal, but on public interest, he strives for the common good and justice. Nationality, in Uvarov’s understanding, meant that between the people (without dividing them into classes) and the monarch there is an inextricable spiritual connection (like between a parent and children), which is the guarantor of the prosperity of Russia.

Moscow University professors M.P. also made their contribution to the development of conservative ideology. Pogodin and S.P. Shevyrev. They noted that in Russia, unlike Europe shaken by revolutions, social peace reigns. And the credit for this belongs to the autocracy and serfdom. Just as the monarch takes care of his people, so does the landowner take care of his peasants.

These ideas were voiced in the newspaper “Northern Bee” by famous journalists F.V. Bulganin and N.I. Grechem, they are reflected in the plays of N.V. Kukolnik, in the works of writers O.N. Senkovsky and M.N. Zagoskina.

Under these conditions, the conservative imperative becomes of great importance in the public consciousness, thanks to which innovations are comprehended and assimilated through the unique filters of their own culture and represent opportunities derived from their own historical foundations. Many public figures realized the discrepancy between the country's development along the Western path and the domestic national-cultural tradition and the fundamental principles of Russian statehood. The result of this was the emergence of a conservative alternative to this course, which represented not so much the preservation of the past in an unchanged form, but rather the search for its own, special path of historical development. The time for the final formation of conservatism as a special direction of Russian social thought was the second half of the 19th century, when modernization processes in the country accelerated significantly. It was during this period, under the influence of many factors, such as the implementation of broad reforms of a bourgeois-liberal nature and the ever-increasing threat of limiting autocratic power, that a conservative concept of modernization of Russia took shape.

The scientific understanding of Russian conservatism in its development went through several stages, each of which had its own characteristic features. The first stage of its study (the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries) is characterized by the formulation of basic questions and problems, the determination of the place of conservatism in the general spectrum of Russian socio-political thought. As a socio-political movement that had a serious influence on government policy, conservatism begins to be considered in the works of pre-revolutionary liberal researchers L. Barrivé, A.A. Kornilova, S.G. Svatikova, N.V. Shchelgunov dedicated social movement that took place in Russia in the post-reform decades. In these studies, conservatism was assessed primarily as an anti-reformation tendency, which, taking advantage of the natural reaction of society to the broad transformations of the 60s, sought to prevent the country from moving towards the establishment of constitutional and legal relations. A more in-depth analysis of the phenomenon of conservatism takes place in the works of H.A. Berdyaev, who considered it from a philosophical and cultural point of view3. His articles on this issue trace attempts to explain the emergence of conservatism in Russia, to comprehend its place in a modernizing society, and to consider the prospects for its further development. The researcher distinguished conservatism as an eternal religious-ontological beginning of human society and as a political direction, in practical activities which conservative principles may become distorted. The unconditional merit of H.A. Berdyaev was that he sought a comprehensive consideration of the phenomenon of conservatism, seeing in it not an obstacle to social development, but the main organizing force of society, connecting the past and the future.

The first significant step in typologizing conservatism and determining its relationship with other socio-political trends was taken by A.D. Gradovsky in his article “What is conservatism?” Gradovsky A.D. Collected works. T. III. St. Petersburg, 1899. P.313-323. . In this work, for the first time in Russian historiography, an attempt is made to theoretically substantiate the division of such concepts as conservatism and reactionism, liberalism and progressivism, and the criteria for their division are determined. The main theoretical conclusion of A.D. Gradovsky recognized that liberalism and conservatism are not opposite directions of thought, and, therefore, their basic principles can be combined within the framework of a single modernization doctrine. The problem of liberal-conservative synthesis in Russian social thought was also touched upon by pre-revolutionary historiography. B.N. Chicherin in his article “ Various types liberalism" gave a detailed description of the essence this direction, separating it from both reactionary and liberal opposition tendencies Chicherin B.N. Different types of liberalism. // Social Sciences and Modernity. 1993. No. 3. . At this time, separate works appeared devoted to the life and socio-political activities of the most prominent representatives of Russian conservatism Glinsky B.B. Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev (materials for the biography). // K.P. Pobedonostsev: pro et contra. St. Petersburg, 1996; Lyubimov N.A. M.N. Katkov and his historical merit. St. Petersburg, 1889; Rozanov V.V. Katkov as a statesman. St. Petersburg, 1902. .

Thus, already in pre-revolutionary historiography, all the necessary prerequisites for studying the modernization concepts proposed in various directions Russian conservative thought; Important steps were taken in revealing the essence of conservatism and its typology.

Liberal conservatism was formed in the conditions of modernization as a direction striving for the evolutionary development of the state based on traditional elements, defining a special civilizational type of Russia. This is a trend, the most important representatives of which were B.N. Chicherin, K.D. Kavelin and A.D. Gradovsky, being a kind of border zone between “pure” liberalism and conservatism, sought to find a more flexible path for the country’s development, synthesizing their most important provisions in his concept. The main problem, standing at the center of the liberal-conservative ideology, was the question of the relationship between tradition and innovation. Their reasonable combination, according to representatives of this direction, makes it possible to resolve many pressing issues and problems posed by the course of history without conflict. Conservative and liberal elements, mutually complementing and reinforcing each other, are able to satisfy the most significant needs of social development, such as renewal and capitalization. In their programmatic guidelines, liberal conservatives sought to proceed from empirical reality, political practice and the real level of spiritual development society, which, in their opinion, will avoid many conflict situations generated by the modernization process.

state nationality conservative protective

Posted on Allbest.ru

Comparison criteria	Slavophiles	Westerners
Attitude towards autocracy	Monarchy + deliberative popular representation	Limited monarchy, parliamentary system, democratic freedoms
Attitude to serfdom	Negative, advocated the abolition of serfdom from above	Negative, advocated the abolition of serfdom from below
Relation to Peter I	Negative. Peter introduced Western orders and customs that led Russia astray	The exaltation of Peter, who saved Russia, renewed the country and brought it to the international level
Which path should Russia take?	Russia has its own special path of development, different from the West. But you can borrow factories, railways	Russia is late, but is and must follow the Western path of development
How to carry out transformations	Peaceful path, reforms from above	Liberals advocated a path of gradual reform. Democratic revolutionaries are for the revolutionary path.

Magazine name	Years of publication	Publishers	Who published	Views	Notes
"Contemporary"	1836-1866	A.S. Pushkin; P.A. Pletnev; from 1847 – N.A. Nekrasov, I.I. Panaev	Turgenev, Goncharov, L.N. Tolstoy,A.K. Tolstoy, Ostrovsky,Tyutchev, Fet, Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov	Revolutionary democratic	The peak of popularity was under Nekrasov. Closed after the assassination attempt on Alexander II in 1866
"Domestic Notes"	1820-1884	From 1820 – P.P. Svinin, from 1839 – A.A. Kraevsky, from 1868 to 1877 - Nekrasov, from 1878 to 1884 – Saltykov-Shchedrin	Gogol, Lermontov, Turgenev, Herzen, Pleshcheev, Saltykov-Shchedrin, Garshin, G. Uspensky, Krestovsky, Dostoevsky, Mamin-Sibiryak, Nadson	Until 1868 – liberal, then – revolutionary democratic	The magazine was closed under Alexander III for “spreading harmful ideas”
"Spark"	1859-1873	Poet V. Kurochkin, cartoonist N. Stepanov	Minaev, Bogdanov, Palmin, Loman (all of them are poets of the “Nekrasov school”), Dobrolyubov, G. Uspensky	Revolutionary democratic	The title of the magazine is an allusion to the bold poem of the Decembrist poet A. Odoevsky “From a spark a flame will ignite.” The magazine was closed “for its harmful direction”
"Russian Word"	1859-1866	G.A. Kushelev-Bezborodko, G.E. Blagosvetlov	Pisemsky, Leskov, Turgenev, Dostoevsky,Krestovsky, L.N. Tolstoy, A.K. Tolstoy, Fet	Revolutionary democratic	Despite the similarity of political views, the magazine conducted polemics with Sovremennik on a number of issues
"Bell" (newspaper)	1857-1867	A.I. Herzen, N.P. Ogarev	Lermontov (posthumously), Nekrasov, Mikhailov	Revolutionary democratic	An emigrant newspaper whose epigraph was Latin expression"Vivos voco!" (“Calling the living!”)
"Russian Messenger"	1808-1906	IN different times– S.N.Glinka, N.I.Grech, M.N.Katkov, F.N.Berg	Turgenev, Pisarev, Zaitsev, Shelgunov,Minaev, G. Uspensky	Liberal	The magazine opposed Belinsky and Gogol, against Sovremennik and Kolokol, and defended conservative politics. views
"Time" / "Epoch"	1861-1865	MM. and F.M. Dostoevskys	Ostrovsky, Leskov, Nekrasov, Pleshcheev,Maikov, Krestovsky, Strakhov, Polonsky	Soil	Conducted a sharp polemic with Sovremennik
"Moskvitian"	1841-1856	M.P. Pogodin	Zhukovsky, Gogol, Ostrovsky,Zagoskin, Vyazemsky, Dahl, Pavlova, Pisemsky, Fet, Tyutchev, Grigorovich	Slavophile	The magazine adhered to the theory of “official nationality”, fought against the ideas of Belinsky and the writers of the “natural school”