Legal issues in the concepts of Slavophiles and Westerners were rated in the perspective of common cultural and historical issues. If the Westerners included Russia in global development on equal rights with other nations, Slavophiles preferred to talk about the uniqueness of Russian civilization and its superiority in relation to Western European culture. Thus, the separation feature between these two directions ran through different vision of the place and role of Russia in world culture. Accordingly, the central question here was the question of the choice of the vector of cultural development, and the legal issues had a secondary meaning. Another vector of public life of Russia was the opposition of two other directions: conservatives and liberals.
The center of their discussions was just the question of the most optimal political and legal system for Russia. Conservatives (from Lat.Sonservare- maintain) were considered necessary to focus on the preservation of an existing structure and to avoid any major changes - not only revolutionaries, but also radical government reforms. Of the thinkers we studied close to this position was N.M. Karamzin. Liberals (from Lat. Libertas - Freedom) insisted on the conduct of reforms, the purpose of which was a change in the existing content and, through this, the maximum possible liberation of the human person. To this direction was close to M.M. Speransva's reform projects. Along with the two currents, there was a radical direction, the purpose of which was a consecutive (by revolution), the overthrow of the political building establishing social justice (this direction was consonant with ideas formulated by A.N. Radishchev and P.I. Pestel).
Conservatism can be defined as a political ideology that focuses on the preservation of historically emerging forms of state and public life. Conservatism's principled plants are considered: anti-rationalism, historicity, justification of the traditional social hierarchy, recognition of the imperfection of human nature and due to the ethogonality of the educational role of the state and the church, the continuity of historical development, the priority of the whole (state, people, nation) before part (individual). Russian conservative attitude arose as a reaction, firstly, to a liberal ideology (ideas of European education, the French revolution), and secondly, the increasing orientation of Russian cultural development to Europe. From here there were two main elements in the Russian protective ideology: anti-remuneration (anti-liberalism) and anti-courseism (nationalism).
Sergey Semenovich Uvarova, the first Russian conservative, is considered the first Russian conservative (1786-1855), the Minister of Folk Enlightenment under Nicolae I. Polytic ideas of Uvarova are based on the thesis about national features Russian people, who, by conviction, inert, worn in the affairs of public administration. How does a thinker writes, about Russia cannot be judged by European theories - it moves forward only by the authorities of the authorities and therefore rather belong to the east than the West. Western legal advisivity has shown its inconsistency during the French Revolution, and only autocratic power can keep the Russian people from following Europe's destroyed fate.
Competing with conservatism political ideology was liberalism. The main idea of \u200b\u200bliberalism is the liberation of the human person, which is proclaimed by the highest value - as opposed to conservatism, where the highest value is the public.
One of the first theoretics of liberalism in Russia was Timofey Nikolaevich Granovsky (1813-1855), a famous historian, lawyer and public figure. He received a legal education, but devotes his scientific activity with historical research.
Politically, Granovsky was close to Wessengers (it is sometimes referred to as "late Westeners"), not counting the insurmountable border between Russian and Western cultures, Orthodox and Catholic confessions of Christianity. By the conviction of the thinker, the political and cultural system existing in Russia was far from excellence and should have developed in the same direction as Western European civilization in general.
This idea of \u200b\u200bthe synthesis of personal and social started formed one of the rod elements of the Russian political and legal discourse; It was developed by another outstanding representative of Russian liberalism - Konstantin Dmitrievich Kavelin (1818-1885), a professor of the history of Russian law in Moskiscioviversity, the main representative of the State School of the Vuscan Story. Surprise of the views of the supporters of this school (to which S.M. Solovyov also belonged to A number of other outstanding Russian historians) came down to the thesis that the public start prevailed in the historical development of the Russian people. The evolution of this began determined the life and culture of the Russian people than historical fate differed from the history of the people of European, where most of the cultural development was made by the departed state intervention, within the framework of the self-organization of social collectives.
This direction of ideas was developed by another theorist of liberalism, one of the brightest and most important thinkers in the history of Russian legal thought - Boris Nikolayevich Chicherin (1828-1904), Professor of the State Law of Moscow University. For understanding of the legal concept of Chicherin, it is important to take into account the fact that he, As well as many other Russian thinkers of the pore, was influenced by the ideas of the German philosopher Hegel. Chicherin developed and supplemented these ideas, which allowed him to create a slim and deep concept of law as a formal restriction of individual freedom. His goal of the thinker was the search for a harmonic agreement "Public Interactions" of the four main unions of the human dormitories - family, civil society, church and state.
Conservatism and liberalism, as the two main directions of the legal thought of Russia of the XIX century, influenced the political course of the government in different ways, on the formation of public ideology. But these two directions converged in one most substantial moment - they had the same social foundation. All thinkers studied above belonged to the nobility. Therefore, it is not surprising that the principle of the public device was not challenged in disputes of different directions - the discussion was about whether the reforms are needed, but no one has set the question of whether the existence of society and existing social structures is justified.
Initially, the radical elements of Russian society focused in the movement of populism, which arose after the reforms of Alexander I. The initiator of this movement was nobles, who considered the past of Russia (serf slavery) of their estate and considered it necessary to "go to the people and to give the people to the people" for the serfstone and For education, which is obtained by the people of the people.
Initially, three main directions were allocated in the populist movement. The Bunlet Direction, before the members of which raised the task of going to the people and ignite the riot, to destroy the existing system by a nationwide rebellion. This setting of the task was based on the idea of \u200b\u200borganizing an immediate uprising, to which the Russian man in the warehouse of his character and because of hatred of the highest layers would certainly join. The propaganda direction proceeded from several other parcels: the people because of their backwardness are not ready for the revolution. Therefore, it is necessary to propaganda in order to explain to the people of his goal and what you need to strive for - to a revolution that replaces the unfair social device to just. Supporters of the third, conspiratorial direction, believed that the masses would never be able to revolutionize due to their inertia and conservatism. Therefore, the task of revolutionaries is to organize a narrow group that can secretly organize a coup and seize power; A Russian man as a "communist on instinct" (Tkachev) will take a new revolutionary power and support its transformation.
The failure of mass walking into people is due to the discrepancy between the ideas that preached revolutionaries, values \u200b\u200band moods of the majority of the peasantry. The peasants did not perceive agitation against the king and the church, the ideas of socialism were incomprehensible to them. In many cases, they themselves reported to the authorities to appear in the village of unknown perturbers. Faced with the real peasant world, the participants of the movement were convinced of the utopian ideas of the ideologues of nationality about the peasant Bunte. The reason for the failure of mass walking into the people of the participants was seen in the absence of a single leading center, a centralized party. Incidentally, they led to ideas about the need to gradually educate backward masses and creating a combat organization for this combat organization.
The next stage of the People's Movement is the creation in 1876 aendy organization "Earth and Will" for centralized leadership of revolutionary activities. Zemlytsi saw their own in the immediate excitation of the universal rebellion, but in the preparation of the masses, awakening the people of political consciousness. A new movement in the people began with the infertility of "land and will". This time the intelligentsia went to the village for campaigning under the guise of teachers, doctors, agronomists.
The main ideologue of the propaganda movement was Peter Lavrovich Lavrov (1823-1900), which the main and most important task of socialists in Russia considered rapprochement with the people for "preparation of the coup to carry out the best future." Unlike Bakunina, Lavrov urged young people to enlighten people, to bring it out of the state of retardation, to prepare him for the future social coup. He saw the essence of historical progress in the improvement of man and society, the development of human solidarity, the embodiment of equality and justice ideas in the human dormitory.
Lavrov was not a supporter of anarchism and considered it necessary to preserve the state. Its legal views are set out by several articles, as well as in the main work on this topic - the "public element in the future society" (1876).
The ideologist of the conspiratorial movement was Peter Nikitich Tkachev (1844-1885), which took place from the impoverished noble family. The Tkachev's political looks outlined the "Tasks of Revolutionary Propaganda", open letter by Friedrich Engels, a number of articles in the magazine "Nabat", which went abroad from 1875 to 1881. He complied with Bakunin and Lavrov, he considered the utopian, the impossible idea of \u200b\u200bNational Revolution. Its mains - the seizure of the power of a small group of revolutionaries, well-organized and soldered by a strong discipline.
After the seizure of power, a revolutionary dictatorship is created, which will enforce the main requirements of the people's program: the transformation of the community to the main cell of economic and public life, the establishment of new relationships of people on the principles of love, equality and fraternity, gradual elimination of state functions.
Especially vividly the ideology of the conspiratorial direction manifested itself in the activities of Sergey Gennadievich Nechaeva (1848-1882), the author of the "Catechism of the Revolutionary" with the statement of the main postulates of the revolutionary struggle. The revolutionary must completely break with its surrounding society, his lifestyle and morality. He has no "neither his interests, nor feelings, no attachments, nor property or even name. His only goal is the destruction of the existing system. It is morally everything that promotes the celebration of the revolution. The revolutionary must be ready to die and destroy everything that prevents his main goal.
Related relationsFriendly communications should be considered only in terms of their feasibility for the revolution. All society should be divided into several categories that one by one must be destroyed. In 1869, he created a circle from students in Moscow. For suspicion of the treason of Nechaev and his accomplices killed their comrade for the mug of student Ivanov. Nechaev fled to Switzerland, but was issued to the Russian government as a criminal. In 1872, an outstanding process was arranged. Sentenced by 20 years KORGOV, NEKHEVUMER in 1882 in prison. The word "Nechaevshchina" became nominal and means a violation by revolutionary moral norms of the obsumed relationship, the use to achieve its feasible, killing.
In the late 1980s - early 90s of the XIX century, Marxist groups and organizations arose in St. Petersburg, Moscow and other cities. People of different views stretched to Marxism. Some tried to master the spontaneous movement of workers, passionate on the way of struggle for the ideas of the Marks Communist Manifesta, others went to the workers to help them defend their daily interests. These humanistic ideas were divided into a considerable part of the Russian intelligentsia. The period of hobbies by Marxism survived the philosophers and economists N.A. Berdyaev, S.N. Bulgakov, PB Struve and many others.
The last direction of the Russian radicalism of the XIX century, which we remains to consider is the Treaty - a social movement, founded by the Great Russian writer Lvom Nikolayevich Tolstoy (1828-1910). The main position of the Etrod, the principle of non-resistance of evil by violence, which is meant to conceive all social forms that are somehow related to the use of organized coercion, including the right state.
Tolstoy was convinced that a person in his sirrode was predisposed to good, to force him to comply with the norms immoral and therefore unacceptably.
According to the factulator, the state, the church and other forced mechanisms of the management of people are unable to correct a person, violent coercion is useless and harmful; It is possible to clarify only the internal rebirth of a person.
20. The social and political movements in the Boreframe Russia - 60-70. 19th century (conservatives, liberals, radicals).
After the defeat of the Decembrists, various salons (home assemblies of like-minded people), circles of officers and officials, universities, literary journals were becoming the centers of the development of public thought: "Patriotic Notes", "Contemporary", etc. Three ideological directions: radical, liberal and conservative. Conservatism. In Russia, relied on theories, proving the inviolability of autocracy and serfdom. The idea of \u200b\u200binviolability autocracy developed during the 18-19 centuries. For an ideological justification of the autocracy Minister of Folk Enlightenment Count S.S. Uvarov created the theory of official nationality. It is based on three principles: self-verse, Orthodoxy, Nature. The essence of the theory in recognition of self-seed as the only possible form of government in Russia. The serfdom was considered as a good for the people and the state. Orthodoxy was understood as deep religiosity inherent deep religiosity. From these postulates were concluded about the impossibility and impossibility of indigenous social changes in Russia. These ideas developed by journalists F.V. Bulgarian and N.I. Half, professors my. University MP Pofodiny and S.P. Schevyrev. Liberalism. At the turn of the 30-40s of the 19th century, two currents were developed among the opposition rights of Liberals - Slavophilism and Western. Both trends wished to see Russia prosperous. For the change of socio-political. Building, for the constitutional monarchy, mitigation or cancellation of serfdom, endowing the peasants with small land. Freedom of conscience and words. The ideologists of Slavophiles were writers philosophers and publicists: Aksakov, Kireevsky. Homyakov, Samarin et al. They exaggerated the national identity of Russia. They insisted on the return of those orders when the Zemskie Cathedrals came to power the opinion of the people, when there were patriarchal relations between the landowners and peasants. Their idea is that the only true and moral religion. 10 Orthodoxy. In their opinion, the Russian people inherent in the special spirit of collectivism. This was explained by the special path of Russia. Fought worship with the West. Westerners for the development of Russia in the direction of European civilization. They explained the difference from the West with the historically established retardation of Russia. Died a special role of the peasant community. Agreed a wide enlightenment of the people. Radicals. In the second half of the 20s - the first half of the 30s, small circles appeared in Moscow and the province were organized by the organized form of the anti-government movement, where police supervision was developed. Their members shared the ideology of the Decembrists and condemned violence with them. They distributed winsted verses, criticized the government. Secret organizations of the 1930s of the 19th century had mainly educational character. Around Stankevich, Belinsky, Herzen and Ogarev, the groups were developed, the members of which were studied domestic and foreign polit, works, promoted the newest Western philosophy. In the middle of the 30s, the decline in societies. Movements due to the defeat of mugs by the police. In the 40s, there was a rise in connection with the activities of Belinsky, Herzen, Ogarev, Butashevich-Petrashevsky and others. Circles of Petrashevsky. He included officials, officers, teachers, writers, journalists (Dostoevsky, Saltykov-Shchedrin). Petrashevtsy condemned the self-verse and serfdom. In the republic, they saw the ideal of politics, devices and scheduled a program of broad democratic transformations. The radical part of them came to the conclusion about the urgent need for the uprising, driving power which should have become peasants. The circle was revealed in 1849 by the Government
Radical liberalism
Political radicalism immediately intercepted the leadership in Gorbachev in nominating new and more courageous liberal-democratic requirements. In particular, the "trive cry" of Russian radicalism was the requirements of the introduction of multiparty and private ownership, outraged Gorbachev and the "populist" named.
In the future, Gorbachev used flexible tactics regarding the requirements of radicals: he tried to intercept and disclose the proposal on his name, which were firmly learned by society. But still leadership in development liberal ideology From the beginning of 1989, the radicals were firmly held.
In the perception and development of Russian radicals of liberal ideology, two stages distinguished in the summer of 1990 were distinguished until that time the concept of "liberalism" them was practically not used: in general, they remained the doctrine of "Democratic Socialism", after - they become "clean" liberals. The term "liberalism" in their ideology is now used as often as the term "democracy.
Russian radicalism since its inception was very eclectic, both in both theoretical and ideological terms and social composition His expressives, among whom they entered: first, a relatively small group of former dissidents led by Academician A. Sakharov; Secondly, most of the scientific and creative intelligentsia, the core of which amounted to the "sixties" (E. Evtushenko, Yu. Chernichenko, V. Selyunun, Baklanov, O. Adamovich, etc.), but the youth played the larger role; Thirdly, part of the Soviet party and ideological apparatus (B. Yeltsin, R. Khassbulatov, Burbulisi dr.). The rather motley composition of the radical movement predetermined and the variety of motives, which were guided by its participants, from sincere liberal, to disguised career. This predetermined the internal contradictions of the radical movement, split and "degeneration", which most fully manifested after the approval of the radicals in power in Russia, when the people from the Soviet-party office took key positions in the state administration, resolutely sweating their allies from him.
Nevertheless, with all the heterogeneity of the liberal movement, it was invested in an obvious ideological unity in the opposition period. In 1990 For all his currents, faith was characterized in the ideals of liberalism, in "universal values", etc.
In 1990, in the January appeal to voters, then another unified radical nucleus was essentially proclaimed by a somewhat modernized program of October 1917: "Power to people! Enterprises - labor collectives! Earth - peasants! Property - everyone and everyone!"
At the end of 1989, this concept has found a feature. specific program, In retrospect, appears as the Forerunner of Gaidar "shockery". In the documents of the interregional deputy group created by radicals, the government plan for the phased reform of the economy for six years is opposed to the slogan "Reforms and the market immediately!" It was said that "during the 1990s should be The liquidation of economic ministries has been prepared and the transfer of enterprises to the ownership of groups concluding contracts with managers. This "folk privatization" was supposed to be complemented by the creation of private trade and entrepreneurship, the introduction of a solid convertible currency.
For the evolution of radical movement in the liberal direction, one difference from Gorbachevtsev was important: a solid orientation on a Western social development model under the continuing commitment to "true" socialism. It should be noted that in the future the radicals rejected socialism in any form and firmly swore the ideal of "pure liberalism", freed from the socialist "impurity". The concept of "liberalism" was now perceived by radical movement, as a fundamental in his ideology. And the in the spring-summer of 1990, the party of radical sense began to compete with each other under the slogan "more liberalism!" The compound of radicalism with "pure liberalism" meant and approval as the Idean-political flow of radical liberalism in Russia. Of course, a constitutional-democratic and Christian-democratic party declared purely liberals, educated people, I did not consist in the CPSU. Championship among Russian populists V. Zhirinovsky put the word "liberalism" in the first place in the title of the liberal-democratic party created by him.
A sharp bias of Russian radicalism towards pure liberalism was manifested in 1990 and the most popular authors of democratic media were publicists who defended the value of the free market in the spirit of M. Tatcher and R. Reagan. Their western idols were already F. Hayek M. Friedman- supporters of "pure capitalism." The radicals continued to consider the Western model as a sample for Russia, but now this model was interpreted as ideally capitalist and antisocialist.
At first glance, the separation of socialist and liberal ideals may seem quite natural, logical overcoming the former "radical growth disease". However, the appeal to the experience of Western civilization refutes such a look: there are liberalism in the XX century. did not reject socialism, but developed on the basis of his own socialization. So following this experience, did not estimate such a categorical discarding of the socialist ideal. This happened for a different reason - by virtue of the logic and characteristics of socio-political processes in Russia.
The actual failure of the two reform models of Gorbachev, designated the same as socialist, was the cause of massive disappointment in the socialism of various social layers.
Another reason for the sharp "correction" of Russian radicals in 1990 was the anti-communist revolutions in Eastern Europe. They showed that anti-communism enjoys wide support and that political victories could not bring a "half-time" liberal-socialist position, but an uncompromising denial of "socialism".
In 1990-1991 Liberalism has reached the greatest distribution and impact in Russia. But in the same period it developed in it specific traitswhich, with retrospective review, act as the basis of his crisis in subsequent years. The main among them were impaired and speculation, ignoring the possibilities and methods for combining the principles of liberalism with the Russian national soil.
An important cause of rooting in the Russian liberalism of these devils should be recognized by the absence of any long period of philosophical and theoretical and ideological aging. Liberalism crisis. The XX century and the destruction of the Dooktyabrsky Liberal Tradition was accompanied by a seventy-year-old "failure" in its development. Her ideology did not receive development also in Russian emigrant and dissident thought. In the 1980s. None in Russia, nor in Russian emigration had no large philosopher, economist or political scientist, but even more so any noticeable theoretical course of this direction. The development of liberal ideology in Russia in the late 80s - early 90s. It was carried out in the form of a fierce political and journalistic attack. This has determined the specific features of modern Russian liberalism, which draws attention to the complete ignoring of the Russian Doktyabrsky Liberal Tradition. When familiarizing with the ideology of modern Russian politicians of this sense, it seems that they were not familiar not only with ideas, but even with the names of M.M. Speransky, B.N. Chicherina, S.A. Muromtseva, P.N. Milyukova, other outstanding liberals of Russia, whose evolution concluded very important lessons who would help our contemporaries to avoid many miscalculations and pass the stage of apprenticeship with less loss.
For Russian liberalism. The basis was based on the basis that the modernization in our country can copy only Western experience. Such an understanding turned into ignoring the most important lessons of leading Western ideology, which in the XX century. Were perceived by the majority of representatives of the liberal direction.
One of these lessons concerns the problem of relationships between an individual and society for liberalism. Representatives of the leading currents of Western liberalism of the XX century. rejected the postulate of the liberalism of the preceding centuries that individual interests, having received complete freedom, automatically satisfy a common interest. In fact, according to most Western Liberals XX in individuals, selfish, in the mode of "natural freedom" to curb congenital egoism, not even the best representatives of the human race. Therefore, civil society and the state are obliged, based on the interests of all classes and the principles of humanism, develop and support the "Rules of the game" in the economy and social relations. State legislation, social and moral normsEthics are recognized as an essential support of liberal political economy.
The next lesson of Western liberalism concerns the relationship between freedom and democracy. Modern Russian liberals in the approach to this issue were demonstrated, in fact, economic determinism, when they proved that economic freedom, market competition and private ownership are the main conditions and guarantors of political democracy. According to the standards of Western liberalism XX in this, a simplified presentation, for democracy automatically exists from freedom of private property and market does not follow. In fact, freedom and democracy is a complex dialectic pair: the excessive elevation of economic freedom causes damage to democracy and vice versa. Western liberalism XX century. considers them as independent values And aims to search for the measure in their relationship, which would help them coexist, and not to be enjoyed.
Modern Russian liberals, unanimously condemned the artificial equity of the socialist system, opposed it as a liberal model of "equality of starting opportunities", arguing that any government intervention aimed at aligning the conditions of the existence of individuals, viciously and anti-liberally. Everyone should receive what he deserves due to its individual abilities. However, from the positions of Western liberalism XX century. This representation is an anachronism. The simple removal of the state from participation in the development of social relations does not ensure "equality of opportunity", because in this case the "starting opportunities" of individuals depend on their family origin: the people from rich families automatically acquire a chance to get much better education, education, medical care, not Already talking about the obvious advantages in the form of inherited real estate and finance. For this reason, the state seeking to ensure opportunities for the full implementation of individual abilities to representatives of different classes, is obliged to provide access to education, medical care, other vital areas for those social layers, which, as a result of its origin and the material situation, are not able to do so, in The lights of this Western states, which introduced free education in their countries, medical care, guaranteed subsistence minimum for poor families in their countries. This, as well as other lessons of Western Liberalism XX in were ignored by Russian radical liberals, refused, in fact, from understanding the most important dilemmas and contradictions of Western civilization and domestic history.
One of the peculiarities of Russian radical-liberalism, closely related to already characterized, is utopism, which expressed in ignoring the real organic characteristics of Russian society and civilization, as well as the real possibilities of Russia of the turn of the 80-90s. In the embodiment of Western samples. Following M. Gorbachev Radical Liberals in its ideology made a provision on the Unified World Civilization, the integral part of which - Russia could have been equipped and should have been equipped in accordance with the "universal values". At the same time, the facts were ignored by a very serious lag from the Western ideal for the main economic indicators.
One of the most popular provisions of the liberal ideology was proclaimed the need and the possibility of rapid creation in Russia "middle class", which in the Western countries is at least two thirds of society, being a solid basis and social stability, and political democracy. It was overlooked, however, an important circumstance: the lack of material foundations of the formation of this class in the country where the production of gross national product per capita was 3-5 times less than in the countries of the West Baranov N.A., Pikalov G.A.Toria Politicia : Lectures course: in 3 hours 2. St. Petersburg., 2003
Another popular idea was the translation of agriculture to the farm path, which would allow not only to quickly feed Russia, but also start grain exports. But never have been given economic and other calculations and calculations, designed to answer questions: how it was possible to make this "big leap" if Russia on the yield of grain was lagging behind Vietnam, Zambia, Pakistan and Nicaragua, and how it was possible to carry out massive fermerization If there were no production and technical base for this and sociocultural prerequisites?
For liberal-radical ideology, a statement was characterized by the possibility of quickly and without deteriorating the position of the people of the transit of the entire economy to market rails. According to the plan "500 days", developed in the spring-summer of 1990, a group of liberal economists, headed by the city of Yavlinsky, has already been assumed during the first half of the named period to carry out large-scale privatization of the economy, as well as its demonopolization. During the second half, it was planned to withdraw mainly state control over the prices, the adequation of a deep decline in the basic sectors of the economy, regulated unemployment and inflation in order to sharp structural restructuring of the economy. By the end of the 500-day term, the program developers promised economic stabilization in all major indicators. With a retrospective review, the utopic features of this program are obvious.
The reasoning of the radical liberals on the political reorganization of Russia were equally optimistic: they did not have any doubts that multiparties, political pluralism, the separation of the authorities and the legal state will be approved in Russia quickly and painlessly. The utopian features of ideology and specific promises of the radical liberals have emerged in the first months of their practical activity in 1991, and fully revealed by the end of 1992, when the results of reforms associated with the name E. Gaidar became clear.
Within the framework of the diploma, it is not possible to reveal the content of Gaidar reforms, as well as show the implementation of liberal-radical schemes in the period after 1991, their minuses and advantages. I will try to indicate only the most important discrepancies between the ideological promises of liberals and the practical results of their activities.
Already the first Gaidar reform - the liberation of prices since January 1992 - led to unexpected and dramatic results, buried the main promise of Radical Liberals - to hold reforms without a serious deterioration of the position of the people. Instead of predicted price growth reformers, approximately 3 times their increase in the main consumer goods was 10-12 times, so that the planned increase in salary and pensions by 70%, produced by meager in comparison with the real increase in prices, led to the fact that the majority of the population turned out to be Birth line. In subsequent years, the gap between rising prices and incomes has been preserved, we can observe today in 2005.
Another major reform of Gaidar and Radical Liberals is the introduction of economic freedom in industry - should have become the basis of structural changes. Free competition was designed to take away the goods (and commodity producers), which satisfied the needs of society, and refund those that he did not need. But in reality, due to a number of reasons, economic freedom led to the most severe crisis of most enterprises, mired in mutual debts. In the very difficult situation, scientific industries were in fact unnecessary market.
Special hopes of liberal reformers pinned on voucher privatization, which, according to their promises, was supposed to pay the masses of Russians in the middle class - security and shareholders. But instead, the trend of the "Transformation of the Power in Property" was enthusiastic in the time of Gorbachev, i.e. Assignment of the property of the Soviet industrial and bureaucracy and party bureaucracy. As a result, nomenclature socialism gave way to nomenclature capitalism.
Did not stand the strength tests and political promises of the Democrats. "The separation of the authorities" collapsed in September-October 1993, giving waying to the presidential regime, furnished by democratic institutions. Instead of the promised legal state, the official arbitrariness began to be approved. Instead of the planned liberals of the North American or Western European model, a mixture of early-capitalist and Latin American was approved.
Such results of reforms had one of the main consequences of the "trust crisis" by the masses of Russians not only to the new government, but also to liberalism, under the banner of which reforms were carried out. The dramatic consequence of the crisis of liberalism was the resuscitation of the communist and the on-nationalist ideas and movements, which rapidly gained strength, putting the entire process of transformation of Russia into a democratic society.
Many active supporters of the radical-liberal transformations of Russia were forced to recognize the utopism of the programs supported by them. Even more politicians speaking in 1989-1991. From the standpoint of "pure liberalism", almost renounced it. Some of them, so for example, N. Herkin, S. Govorukhin, - generally made a turn by 180%, going to the ranks of the hard "states."
Russian intelligentsia by the middle of the XIX century splits to radical and liberal. Radicals Manically focus on a painful inflamed "social" issue. Forming order of the Russian intelligentsia with its characteristic signs. Dedication to B. general revolutionary case, utopian ideas about major needs of society tear off a person from reality ( "Nodes circle of these revolutionaries, they are terribly far from the people" - Lenin). Liberal The intelligentsia leans to the skeptical positivist contemplation with atheism, materialism. The socio-political worldview of a liberal society due to amorphism depending on the radical flank.
Liberals were divided by generality-teligent baselessness. "We still have liberals have been only of two layers: the former landlord (abolished) and the seminar. And since both classes turned, finally, in the perfect castes, in something completely different from the nation, and the farther, the more, from generation to the generation, then, it became, and all that they did and do was absolutely not National ... not national; Although in Russian, but not national; And we have not Russian liberals, and the conservatives are not Russian, everything ... And be sure that the nation does not recognize anything from what is done by landowners and seminarists, nor now, nor after " (F.M. Dostoevsky).
Western liberalism developed in the depths of national cultures and was constructive. Nonationality Liberal Russian intelligentsia turns it into anti-national estate: "What is liberalism ... how not an attack (reasonable or erroneous, is it another question) to the existing procedures of things? .. Russian liberalism is not an attack on the existing procedures of things, but there is an attack on the most essence of our things, the most things, and not For one order, not to Russian orders, but for the most Russia. My liberal reached the point that he denies Russia, that is, he hates and hits his mother. Each unhappy and unsuccessful Russian fact excites laughter in it and almost delight, he hates folk customs, Russian history, all. If there is an excuse for him, it is not that he does not understand what he does, and his hatred for Russia takes for the most fruitful liberalism (oh, you often meet with our liberals, which are applauding the rest and which may be in essence The most ridiculous, most stupid and dangerous conservative, and does not know himself!). This hatred of Russia is not so long ago, our other liberals took a little bit of true love for the Fatherland and were praised by what they would see better, what should it be; But now they have already become frank and even the words "love for the Fatherland" began to be ashamed, even the concept was expelled and eliminated as a harmful and insignificant ... This fact is at the same time, which is nowhere and never happened, the spokes and in any people It did not happen ... This could not be liberal anywhere who would hate his own foundation "(F.M. Dostoevsky).
Without the religious foundations, the worldview of the educational society was filled with various phantoms: "Without faith in his soul and in her immortality, the being of a person is unnaturally, unthinkable and unbearab ... One of the most terrible concerns for our future is that, in my opinion, in a very already, in too many parts of the intelligent layer of Russian some special, strange ... well, at least a predetermination more and more and with emergency progressive speed is rooted perfect disbelief In her soul and in her immortality. And not only that this disbelief is rooted by conviction (we still have a very little belief in anything), but rooted and widespread, strange some indifferentism to this supreme idea of \u200b\u200bhuman existence, indifferentism, sometimes even mocking, God knows from where and for what laws we have a stationary, and not to one of this idea, and to all that is vital true LifeTo all, what gives and nourishing life gives her health, destroys decomposition and stench. This indifference ... has long been penetrating and in the Russian intellectual family and almost destroyed it. Without a higher idea, there can be no man nor a nation ... And the highest idea on earth is only one and precisely - the idea of \u200b\u200bthe immortality of the soul of human, for all the other "highest" ideas of life, which a person can be alive, only one people leuve out of one (F.M. Dostoevsky).
Denationalized culture formed generations with non-historical worldview and inadequate actions. The daughter of the Russian poet Anna Fedorovna Tyutchev writes about the attendant installations that were planted through educational institutions: "This superficial and frivolous education is one of the many results of a purely external and ostentatious civilization, whose gloss is a Russian government, starting with Peter the Great, tries to instill our society, without taking care of it to be imbued with genuine and serious elements of culture. The lack of education of moral and religious revealed the doors to propaganda nihilistic doctrinewho currently nowhere are not as common as in the institutions of educational institutions ".
FI itself Tyutchev with bitterness wrote about the anti-Russian mindworks common in the liberal society: "It russophobia Some Russian people - by the way, very revered ... Previously, they told us that in Russia they are hated by the lack of freedom of printing, etc. etc., that therefore they are so gently love to Europe that she is undoubtedly possessed by all what is not in Russia ... What do we see now? As Russia, achieving greater freedom, is still self-affirming, the dislike of these gentlemen only increases. ".
Indicative memories of the book publisher M.V. Sabashnikov. Generations merchants of Siberia developed the economy of Russia. By the end of the XIX century, many business people We realized that the accumulated wealth should serve as a cultural prosperity of the Motherland. The father of the Sabashnikov brothers is building a house in Moscow, which becomes the center of creative communication and support for the artistic elite. The brothers receive an excellent European education and joined modern culture. They are brought up in the atmosphere of the Russian family, where mutual love and confidence dominated. This wonderful human type was distributed in Russia late XIX - early XX century. The Sabashnikov brothers continue the charitable activities of the Father: they arrange hospitals, build temples, help hungry, organize publishers for their funds. Patriotic ministry was not an exception in the ranks of Russian industrialists, merchants and Zemstvo. However, their consciousness was secularized, so they did not know the centuries-old Russian Orthodox culture, did not see the challenges of the era, which means they were not able to fully ministry to society and the Fatherland.
Why people who grew up in Christian traditions became positivists, atheists, materialists? Dostoevsky inquisitively attacked the answer to the question: how and why this dislocation occurred in traditionally educated russian boys? How he himself "What happened from the Russian and pious family", Since childhood, the believer and God-fearing, reached the denial of God? "We learned our family in the family almost from the first childhood ... Every time a visit to the Kremlin and the Councils of Moscow was something solemn for me", - recalled the writer. He was forced to recognize with bitterness: "I will tell you about myself that I am a child of the century, the child of disbelief and doubt still and even (I know it) to the coffin tire". Spiritual decisions penetrated through the walls of Russian houses in the family, destroying small churchwhich was the last stronghold of national identity.
What Russian patriots of Sabashnikov considered it necessary to publish to enlighten the people in the first place? Ideals that were considered in the elite of higher and values \u200b\u200b- vital, reflected in the publishing program of Sabashnikov: books on the subject of idealism, rationalism, empiricism, positivism, on issues modern science. On the second plan there was an artistic foreign classic. This does not mean that such publications are not needed to enlighten society. Most of Christian culture - patriotics, compositions of medieval Orthodox authors, modern Christian thinkers of Russia and the West - was not available to the reading public in Russia, but remained outside the attention of Russian publishing. Definition of quite respectable people turned into limited, insensitive historically pressing. Newlyracted atheists were not able to comprehend the centuries-old russian Orthodox CivilizationSo, they did not understand the main thing in the fate of Russia.
Sabashnikov did not publish works that responded to the spiritual needs of the people and could serve him with genuine enlightenment, would help to overcome the alienation from the people living orthodox faith. Their publishing activities contributed progressive ideology An educated society, in which materialistic or abstract idealistic views approved. The stream of humanistic literature, not balanced by the publications with the traditionally Russian, Orthodox look at the world, did not contribute to the growth of the historical and national self-consciousness of society. Critical reviews of the released literature, with rare exception, were written by positivists, materialists and whitists, which were introduced into the minds of the readers of prejudice as immutable axiom. The positions of Anti-Christian tuned authors in Russian journalism intensified. So, the encyclopedia of Brockhaus and Ephron, which was published in idealistic and partly in the Christian spirit, when reproduced, turned into a "new encyclopedic Dictionary"With a positivist bias under the form of" objective scientific relationship ". Idea omnivo (indemnifying spirits) I. spiritual anemiathey led to the fact that the social activity of many authoritative figures according to the degree of dehristianization "outpathed" the level of their own drying religiosity. An example of unprincipledness is the activities of Morozov's industrialist, which was not only a patron, but also a lender of terrorists. The hands of people who still believing themselves Christians were on the merits of the Antichristian business.
Dynamic Russian reality offered opportunities diseases of consciousness, but representatives of the liberal intelligentsia remained loyal to their dogma: "Proven from the political struggle, they go to everyday cultural work. These are excellent statistics, builders of highways, schools and hospitals. All Zemskoy Russia is created by them. They mainly keep a public organization, launched by the declared, decadent bureaucracy. In the thick vital work They gradually won in the soil, losing in "Idea". However, they remain until the end, before the war of 1914, in the person of the most patriarchal and honorable elders, bootiers and anarchists. They do not emphasize this dogma, but he is the main member of their "beliege" " (G.P. Fedotov).
From the middle of the XIX century creative energy Most of the educated society and business estate was fond of various kinds ideomans. Liberals were developed by the "new" worldview, nihilists brought it to a logical limit, and terrorists implemented radical installations in life. The liberals were injured by tradition, the radicals denied them, and the revolutionaries left the foundations. Society consisted of two columns of destruction: Liberals sowed "new" revolutionary ideas, radicals were imaginary to extreme conclusions and finished out that they were not solved by liberals, which only remained to recognize and maintain left radicalism. The real needs of the country and the people remained out utopic public consciousness. How self-critical is aware of thinking, conscientious Russian intellectual - Hero Roman A.I. Solzhenitsyn: "That's it, for centuries, employed by himself, we held the people in serfs, did not develop, neither spiritually, neither culturally - and transferred this concern revolutionaries".
In the great reforms, Alexander II, the liberal community without thinking up to defend terror, an overlooking country: "And the weapon expressed hatred did not subside the consoles. And between the shots of those and these stamped, fell to the ground, the glasses dropped, risen, the hands sighed, persuaded and there was a unfortunate Russian liberalism. However, we note: he was not a tertee, he was not impartial, he did not equally responded to the shots and sinks from the other side, he was not even liberalism himself. Russian educated society, no longer a good powerful power, was glad, applauded left terrorists and demanded a shared amnesty to all of them. The larger in the nineties and nine-day years, the angright of the intelligentsia against the government was to be angry, but it seemed unacceptable to gain the revolutionary youth, which was shot down from the legs of the lecturers and forbidden academic classes. As the acceleration of the Coriolis has a strictly determined direction on the whole of the ground, and all river streams are so rejecting water that the right banks of the rivers are washed and crying, and the spill goes left, both forms of democratic liberalism on Earth, how much can be hit, always hit , Always smoothed to the left. There are always the left of their sympathy, to the left are able to stop the legs, to the left there are heads to listen to judgments, - but shamefully it is possible to go to the right or accept at least the word to the right ... the most difficult to read the average social development line: does not help, like on the edges, throat, fist, bomb , grille. The middle line requires the greatest self-control, the most solid courage, the most educated patience, the most accurate knowledge. (A.I. Solzhenitsyn).
By the beginning of the twentieth century in humanitarian work, decomposition processes, writers intensify from the accusers of defects turn into dissensus. I.A. Bunin described so the process of spiritual degradation: "At the end of the nineties, I have not come yet, but I have already felt" big wind from the desert. " And he was already intended in Russia for that "new" literature that somehow suddenly came to replace the same ... But that's what is extremely significant for those days when the "wind of the desert" is already nearing: the strength and abilities of almost all innovators were pretty Low quality, vicious from nature, mixed with vulgar, false, speculative, with domestic street, with shameless thirst success, scandals ... This time was the time already a sharp decline in the literature of the morals, honor, conscience, taste, mind, tact, measures ... Rozanov At that time, very by the way (with pride) once said: "Literature - my pants, what I want, then I do it ..." Subsequently, the block wrote in his diary: "The literary environment will be fatal" ... blasphemy, blasphemy - one of the main properties of revolutionary Times, it began with the most first blows of the "wind from the desert" ". About exalted atmosphere decomposition The popular characteristic is evidenced, which one of the publicists gave his homeland: "All-Russian Corpent Swamp".
The creative intelligentsia with enthusiasm achieved the remnants of traditions and served the preparation of the Falang of the destroyers. As a result of universal ideological blinding The part of the educated society and business class, which could be a bones of transformations, was on the side of Russia's expusculus. Did not pass it poveter And traditionally a conservative estate of merchants.
Denies in the liberal society of traditional culture and Orthodoxy, the orientation for alien ideologies played a fateful role in the fate of Russia. Utopic dreaminess Without moral recovery and without a sense of civil debt is not a harmless mind of the mind. Element of empty fantasy Pastens spiritual fastenings, pushes disrupting moral and spiritual norms. Uncritical susceptibility to alien ideas decomposes consciousness. Every creativity is beyond responsibility to the Creator can awaken the disastrous elements. Public activity, civil activity without a religious feeling - readiness for the coming heavenly upcoming - Destroying for the home of the earth - Fatherland. Total submission to private ideas the finest sense - disease of spirit. Fleening with ideological "immishes" leads to consistent human degradation. Atheism Sterilizes conscience and deprives the spiritual orientation. This can be seen by the example of the atheism of Belinsky, who did not feel the monstristence of his call for the destruction one hundred thousand heads In the name of the celebration of socialism in the world. Materialism Lescapes life interests and ideals. Rationalism Halling the soul, formalizes and narrows consciousness, introduces confidence in the possibility of an arithmetic solution to all problems. Expensive cost Russia self-confidence reason! Formulas for future global social experiments worked out on the "writing desk" of Russian journalism and journalism, where dominated manic tonewhich logs called « liberal Taste Terror» . Poisons poisoning Russia accumulated in burned Studies russian boys . Empiricism In turn, I unleashed the hands for thoughtless experiments over alive and life. Positivism He introduced the "wise" indifference to what is happening to those who were able to understand something.
Viktor Aksyuchits philosopher, member of the Political Council of the Motherland Party
Conservatism- ideological commitment to traditional values \u200b\u200band orders, social or religious doctrines. For the main value, the preservation of the traditions of society, its institutions and values \u200b\u200bis taken.
Conservatives in internal politics The value of the existing state and public order is emphasizing and reject radical reforms regarding them as extremism. In foreign policy, conservatives make a bet on strengthening security, allow the use of military force, try to support traditional allies, protectionism is defended in foreign economic relations.
In modern societies, conservatism is one of three so-called basic ideologies: liberalism, socialism and conservatism. Modern conservatism (neoconservatism) is sometimes even more flexible and movable than other political trends. Examples - Reagan reforms in the United States, Tatcher reforms in the UK.
In the post-Soviet Russia, the ideology of conservatism embodies the party "United Russia". According to many observers, conservatism is the state ideology of Russia in the 2010th.
Historical type conservatism 19 century. I failed to win in the fight against social reformation, the initiative of which proceeded from Liberals. At the beginning of the 20th century, a new type of conservatism arose - revolutionary conservatism), presented by two species - Italian fascism and German national socialism.
A general sign of a significant part of these political forces was to strong government power, a significant restriction of democracy in favor of the ruling top, for the sake of establishing and maintaining the order and providing public security.
In the first half of the XX century. Conservatism continued to develop classical principles formulated at the previous stage of development - traditionalism. Overall characteristic Conservatism was the authority of power: monarch and republican. He put forward social unity and cohesion as a tool confronting the threats of modernity. These threats were democracy, as a result of which the conservatism of the first half of the 20th century had a purely antidemocratic nature. This is reflected in practice, when a number of states with authoritarian political regimes appeared in Europe: Italy, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Hungary, Romania.
Liberalism
Liberalism - Philosophical and socio-political course, proclaiming the inviolability of rights and individual freedoms.
Liberalism proclaims the rights and freedoms of each person by the highest value and establishes them legal basis Public and Economic Procedure. At the same time, the possibilities of the state and the church to influence the lives of society are limited to the Constitution. The most important freedoms in modern liberalism recognize freedom to publicly speak, freedom of choosing religion, freedom to choose representatives on honest and free elections. In economically, the principles of liberalism are the inviolability of private property, freedom of trade and entrepreneurship. For legal terms, the principles of liberalism are the rule of law over the will of rulers and the equality of all citizens before the law, regardless of their wealth, position and influence.
Modern liberalism includes many flows, between which there are deep ideological contradictions and sometimes there are conflicts. These flows are reflected, in particular, in such a key document, as the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights."
The XX century was marked by the emergence of ideologies, directly opposing himself liberalism. In the USSR, the Bolsheviks have begun to eliminate the remains of capitalism, while in Italy, fascism appeared, which, according to the leader of this movement, Benito Mussolini, was a "third way", denying both liberalism and communism. In the USSR, private property for the means of production was prohibited for the sake of achieving social and economic justice. Governments in Italy and especially in Germany denied the equality of people in rights. In Germany, this was expressed in propaganda of racial superiority. The Aryan race, under which the Germans and some other German peoples were understood, over other peoples and races. In Italy Mussolini, the rate was made to an idea of \u200b\u200bthe Italian people as a "state-corporation". Both regimes approved the priority of public interests over private and suppressed personal freedom. From the point of view of liberalism, these common features united communism, fascism and Nazism into a single category - totalitarianism. In turn, liberalism began to determine himself as an opponent of totalitarianism and consider the latter as the most serious threat to liberal democracy.
To date, liberalism is one of the leading ideologies in the world. Concept of personal freedom, self-esteem, freedom of speech, universal human rights, religious tolerance, inviolability of personal life, private property, free market, equality, legal state, government transparency, restrictions on state power, the supreme power of the people, the self-determination of the nation, enlightened and reasonable state policy, got the wider distribution.
Radicalism
The concept of "radicalism" (from the Latin Radix - root) is determined by socio-political ideas and actions aimed at the most cardinal, decisive ("radical", "indigenous") change in existing social and political institutions. This is a correlative term denoting, above all, a gap with an already recognized, existing tradition, its capital change.
In a broad sense, the concept of political radicalism is interpreted as a special sociocultural phenomenon, due to the peculiarities of the historical, social, economic and religious development of the country, manifested in the value orientations, sustainable forms of political behavior of actors aimed at opposition, changes, total, rapid pace of change, primacy of power methods in implementing political goals.
In the 20th century, the functions of radicalism were largely continued to carry out social democratic, socialist and other left, neoliberal, as well as modern neoconservative parties and movements.
For modern ideological radicalism, certain reasonable dogmatism and utopism are also characterized, insensitivity to a specific situation, a tendency to "simple" solutions and sympathy for extreme funds. These features of radicalism in the 1960-70s once again demonstrated "new left", followers of Marcuse, for which there was no connection between the "reasonable reality", the "other world" of the future and present, and therefore the first step in the project implementation The future, one way or another, turned out to be a nihilistic "great refusal" from the empirical data of the bourgeois world of that time.
In recent decades of the XX century, radicalism has become a base for fundamentalist Islamic political forces.
The basis of radicalism lies, firstly, a negative attitude towards the established socio-political reality, and secondly, the recognition of one of the possible ways to exit the real situation as the only possible. At the same time, radicalism is difficult to associate with any particular political position.
Radicalism is always an opposition direction. Moreover, it is a support of the most rigid, radical opposition, in contrast to the opposition moderate - "systemic", loyal, "constructive". As a rule, he plays a destabilizing role in society.
Politics usually distinguish between the right, left and anarchist, as well as the revolutionary and reformity types of radicalism.
It is important to note that radicalism is inclined to use violent methods and funds, most often not relevant to publicly declared purposes. Then he can directly climb the extremism and grow into it, finding its concrete, practical expression in various forms of political terrorism (from the "bombers" of the beginning, the XX century in Russia to Islamic terrorists of W. Ben-Laden at the beginning of the XXI century).
Sometimes radicalism is stimulated by the peculiarities of a particular situation - so, the inconsistency of the Gorbachev perestroika in the USSR spurred in the early 1990s by the radicalism of the first President of Russia B. Yeltsin and, after this, actively encouraged by the radical reformers to the so-called shock reforms. Such radicalism may be on the verge of terrorism.
The condition of universal uncertainty and instability is considered a favorable social and psychological soil for radicalism.
The dynamics of the process of processing ideological, theoretical radicalism into political extremism is well traced on the example of the development history of the so-called Frankfurt Social Philosophy School. This school has developed in 1930-1950 on the basis of the Frankfurt Institute of Social Research. The theorists of the Frankfurt school insisted on a radical change of all the former obstacles - until the development of T. adorno "philosophy of new music".
In Russia, radicalism is considered as an integral component of socially polytic life, which has a significant impact on it: "Radicalism is an essential political and cultural tradition. Being due to historical, geographical, political, social, psychological features The development of the country, radicalism and today has an impact on the nature of the functioning of all spheres of society, the mentality, feelings, moods, the habits of individuals and society, on the behavior model, the forms of political participation and interaction between Russians.
