MODULE I. Philosophy as a political ideology.

Russian philosophy traditionally has got political context. How can we classify ideological branches of Russian philosophy? The first principle is a principle of chronological sequence of political development of the state and civil society in Russia. According to it, we can observe some periods of Russian political philosophy: medieval period, influenced by Byzantine culture and its inertia, can be dated from the foundation the state of Russia in 862 A.D. to the election of the Romanov’s royal dynasty in 1613. Next period, influenced by European culture, can be dated to the revolution of 1917. Soviet period produced very interesting political ideology, which is early to discuss nowadays, but we can try. The second principle is a principle of political orientation, so we can observe rich examples of radicalism, liberalism and conservatism in Russian political philosophy, especially in the second period of its development.

So, we have to begin from the ancient times. There are different opinions about the character of the ancient Russian philosophy. Some researches, such as G.V. Plekhanov, realized Russian political philosophy of this period as a result of ideological confrontation between temporal and ecclesiastical authorities. Other explorers, such as James H. Billington, display the dramatic dialectical contradiction between material and spiritual sources of the Russian culture, symbolized by the icon and the axe. Let’s describe some philosophers of this period and receive our own opinion.

One of the brightest spokesmen by the ancient Russian book-learning culture was metropolitan Ilarion (end of the Xth –near 1054/1055). According to “The Tale of bygone years” by Nestor, Ilarion was elected as the metropolitan of Russian Orthodox Church in 1051, during the reign of Yaroslav the Wise. The most famous book of Ilarion is “The sermon on the law and the grace” with its comparison of the old and New Testaments. In his philosophy of history Ilarion explains the reasons of the universal history. According to Ilarion, world’s history moves in keeping with the regulations of God, and the sense of the history is in the spreading of Christianity. Every nation can moves from its old law to the grace of the Christianity, and this way is a way from slavery to freedom. Ilarion realizes Russian history as a part of world history and he declares that young Christian nations can become “new bottles for the old wine” as successful, as old ones. This idea proclaims the political equality of different nations. So, we can see the first example of declaring of equal right of different nations in the Christian literature and the foundation of Russian idea as an idea of internationalism.

The next interesting political philosopher is a famous ruler and legislator of the ancient Russia Vladimir Monomakh (1053-1125). His main book, “Instructions by Vladimir Monomakh”, bases the necessity of political unity for different parts of uncoordinated medieval country. “Instructions” is not only political, but ethical book, based on the Christian morality. It teaches for the absolute value of the justice, sympathy, evasion of evil, confession, prayer, care of the weak persons, charity and reverential trust. They are proclaimed as a way of little steps, which can lead every person to salvation, such as monastic vow must obtain salvation. This book is a good example of the unity of practical and religious philosophy, but we can find the idea of the justification of political authority too. Vladimir Monomakh doesn’t support the Byzantine idea about the origin of the power by God, he is fatalist, he supposes the political power as a result of social and spiritual services and as a choice of the fate, destiny. So, he supports a just society and claims humane and moral principle for the state and society.

Please read the text of Vladimir Monomakh and translate it into English:

Поучение Владимира Мономаха

Дети мои или иной кто, слушая эту грамотку, не посмейтесь, но кому из детей моих она будет люба, пусть примет её в сердце своё и не станет лениться, а будет трудиться. Прежде всего, Бога ради и души своей, страх имейте Божий в сердце своём и милостыню подавайте нескудную, это ведь начало всякого добра… Как отец, чадо своё любя, бьёт его и опять привлекает к себе, так же и Господь наш показал нам победу над врагами, как тремя добрыми делами избавляться от них и побеждать их: покаянием, слезами и милостынею. И это вам, дети мои, не тяжкая заповедь Божия, как теми делами тремя избавиться от грехов своих и царствия небесного не лишиться. Бога ради, не ленитесь, молю вас, не забывайте трёх дел тех, не тяжки ведь они; ни затворничеством, ни монашеством, ни голоданием, которые иные добродетельные претерпевают, но малым делом можно получить милость Божию… Если же Бог смягчит сердце, пролейте слёзы о грехах своих… Всего же более убогих не забывайте, но, насколько можете, по силам кормите и подавайте сироте и вдовицу оправдывайте сами, а не давайте сильным губить человека. Ни правого, ни виновного не убивайте и не повелевайте убить его; если и будет повинен в смерти, то не губите никакой христианской души… Старых чтите, как отца, а молодых, как братьев. В дому своём не ленитесь, но за всем сами наблюдайте… Лжи остерегайтесь, и пьянства, и блуда, от того ведь душа погибает и тело. Куда бы вы ни держали путь по своим землям, не давайте отрокам причинять вред ни своим, ни чужим, ни сёлам, ни посевам, чтобы не стали проклинать вас. Куда же пойдёте и где остановитесь, напоите и накормите нищего, более же всего чтите гостя, откуда бы к вам ни пришёл, простолюдин ли, или знатный, или посол… Больного навестите, покойника проводите, ибо все мы смертны… А вот вам и основа всему: страх Божий имейте превыше всего.

Памятники литературы Древней Руси. Начало русской литературы. XI – начало XII в.в. М., 1978. С.393-401.

Later centuries of the first period produced the ideology of political centralization around Moscow. One of the most interesting personal of this branch of political philosophy and at the same time a participant of religious discussions is Joseph Volotsky (1439/1440 – 1515). His volume “The Enlightener” touches political, religious and philosophical problems. In the first period of development of his philosophy Joseph Volotsky appears as the apologist of monasticism and the ideologist of ecclesiastical authorities. But the second period of his philosophy is cardinally other. Then Joseph Volotsky, as a landlord, has entered with the lands of his monastery to the state of Moscow, his political philosophy cardinally changed. He became an ideologist of political centralization around Moscow. He proves the Moscow’s prince superiority over ecclesiastical authorities and princes of other Russian regions, because he substantiates the origin of Moscow’s royal power by God. So, in political philosophy of Joseph Volotsky we can see the first example of legitimation of absolute monarchy.

Another political philosopher, Philotheus of Pskov (near 1465 – 1542) is famous with his doctrine “Moscow as the third Rome”. He is an author so-called “Epistles”. In “Epistle about the correction of the signs of the cross and fornication of Sodom” to the prince of Moscow Basil III, there he firstly names him as a king, Philotheus formulates paradigm “Moscow as the third Rome”. That is it: “Two Romes have fallen, the third Rome exists and the fourth Rome there will not be”. What does it mean? Let’s beat the matter out. We can see an example of the Christian philosophy of history, so we can’t understand the human’s history as an endless process: according to that doctrine, the universe moves to its termination and we can speculate about the first and the last events. Why only three Romes can exist during the human’s history? May be, we can find answer in the symbolism of the Trinity. Three epochs, ruled by different Romes as capitals of the big empires, compare with the three faces of the Trinity. That is why the fourth Rome there will not be. The first Rome and the second one, Constantinople, have fallen in the result of the holy terror for their sins. Philotheus proves the continuity of the Moscow’s royal power from the last Byzantine emperor, so Moscow is proclaimed as the last Rome, which receives a task to keep the true Christian faith. Thus, we can find an example of formulating of “Russian idea” in the later medieval period.

Please read the text of Philotheus of Pskov and translate it into English:

Послание Великому князю Василию

Ибо старого Рима церковь пала по неверию ереси Аполлинария, второго же Рима, Константинова-града, церковные двери внуки агарян секирами и оскордами рассекли. И вот теперь третьего, нового Рима, державного твоего царства святая соборная равноапостольная церковь во всех концах вселенной в православной христианской вере по всей поднебесной больше солнца светится… Храни и внимай, благочестивый царь, тому, что все христианские царства сошлись в одно твоё, что два Рима пали, а третий стоит, а четвёртому не бывать. И твоё христианское царство другим не сменится, по слову великого Богослова, а для христианской церкви сбудется блаженного Давида слово: «Вот покой мой, во веки веков, здесь поселюсь, как пожелал я того».

Памятники литературы Древней Руси. Конец XV – первая половина XVI века. М., 1984. С.441

Hand-written “Correspondence” between Andrey Kurbsky (1528-1583) and Ivan the Terrible (1530-1584) became common property of the whole Russian-reading society of 16^th century and because of that had many copies and several editing. These letters are very interesting as a discussion about the character of monarchy. Andrey Kurbsky, as a leader of aristocratic opposition, claimed that monarchy must be restricted by aristocratic council of advisers. He compares two types of monarchy: autocracy, which combines will of monarch and wisdom of advisers, and despotism. In his opinion, the reign of Ivan the Terrible has degenerated into despotism. On the other side, Ivan the Terrible declares the value of absolute monarchy. He asserts that God instructed monarch to rule the kingdom and develop it. In his theory of autocracy Ivan the Terrible follows tradition of Joseph Volotsky and proclaims priority of temporal authorities under ecclesiastical ones. It’s not only a political discussion. Historic circumstances of discussion and social positions of its participants are really dramatic. Ivan the Terrible has definite reputation, but Andrey Kurbsky is a very paradoxical person in historiography. In his youth he was friend of Ivan the Terrible, and in the beginning of Lithuanian war (1558-1583) he was military leader of Russian troops. Later he has changed his position and became the military leader of enemy forces, which have brought serious destruction for north-west region of Russia. There is another aspect of this discussion: where is the difference between the treason and the dissent? Andrey Kurbsky supposed that he struggled against tyranny, but Ivan the Terrible proclaimed his as a betrayer. Such discussions is prolonging in political fields until nowadays.

The second period of development of the Russian political philosophy, influenced by European culture, has given many interesting examples of radicalism, liberalism and conservatism. Russian political thought and political history demonstrate very rich tradition of radicalism. Let’s analyze some examples of it. The founder of a Russian radicalism is Alexander Radischtschew (1749-1802), the author of many literary, philosophical and political texts such as infamous “Ode to the Liberty”, “The journey from St-Petersburg to Moscow” and “About the human being, his mortality and immortality”. He declared against serfdom and fought for the freedom of serfs and wrote about necessity of reforms that could be undertaken by the government. He proclaimed priority of the rights of people under the rights of monarch. Advanced and enlightened Empress of Russia, Ekaterina II, realized his proclamation as an attempt of revolution, and he was repressed. In spite of that, revolutionary activity in Russia has prolonged.

Russian revolutionary radicalism of the XIX – beginning of the XX centuries has got three main periods of its development: the first period was associated with revolutionary activity of the noble estate, the second period became a period of revolutionary democracy and Russian populism and the third period was a period of revolutionary Marxism. The first period, so called Decembrist period, looked like the most paradoxical one, because the main force of revolutionary activity was privileged class of the Russian nobility, which fought for the abolition of common people from serfdom. There were two ideological branches inside the theory of the Decembrists, headed by Pavel Pestel (1793-1826) and Nicita Muraviov (1795-1843). They had common idea about revolution and abolition from serfdom, but also there were some disagreements in their plans, as we can see in their projects of the future Constitution of Russia. Muraviov was a supporter of constitutional monarchy, restricted by federal form of the power in Russia. In his opinion, only Federation eliminates any possibility of the restoration of despotic royal power. Pestel had other, more radical plan of renovation of the state of Russia. He pursed a policy of revolutionary institution of the Republican government in the form of representative democracy. Pestel advocated for the preservation of a united and indivisible Russia. Also he demanded not only the abolition of serfdom, but abolition of the class division of society. He was so radical, that he demanded the extermination of the ruling royal family. An attempt of revolution in December of 1825 wasn’t successful, and the participants of this movement were executed or exiled to hard labor in Siberia, also they were deprived of noble rank, so they suffered heavy punishment. Their revolutionary attempt demonstrated a brilliant example of a struggle for the freedom of the Russian people.

The second period of development of radical political philosophy and practice was created by people of different degrees and classes. Part of intelligentsia – A. Herzen, N. Ogarev, V. Belinsky, N. Cherhyshevsky - created antimonarchy revolutionary ideology of especial Russian socialism, directed, most of all, against the institute of serfdom. Alexander Herzen (1812-1870), the author of many articles, for example “Dilettantism in science”, “From the other shore”, “About the development of the revolutionary ideas of Russia”, gave the philosophical and theoretical rationale of so-called "Russian peasant socialism”. He proclaimed political ideal as the unity of the individual and the state, of government and society, of communism and selfishness. Herzen believed that saving of the collective land in a peasant community was the advantage of Russian society from Western Europe. Thus he concluded possible of a long process of non-capitalist development of Russian society by combining of traditional collective institutions and the individual freedom. Nikolay Chernyshevsky (1828-1889), the leader of revolutionary democracy, philosopher, economist, publicist and writer, author of many books and articles, such as “Criticism of the philosophical prejudices against the communal land tenure”, “The capital and the labor”, “The anthropological principle in philosophy” and social and philosophical novel “What is to be done?”. In his social philosophy Chernyshevsky prolongs Herzen’s idea of non-capitalist movement of Russia to socialism. He believed that Russian society can achieve socialism passing stage of capitalism, on the base of peasant community, using economic experience of Western countries and community skills of Russian peasants. His formulation of non-capitalist way of Russia’s development looks like combination of patriarchal peasant community, the achievements of science and large-scale machine industry. The conception of Chernyshevsky had some contradiction: on one hand, he believed the peasant revolution as a goal of social transformation in Russia, on the other hand, he didn’t believe in the revolutionary power of the peasantry, because he proclaimed special mission of intelligentsia in the history. This belief in revolutionary mission of intelligentsia is one of the main point of Russian populism. In general we can say that in his sociological theory Chernyshevsky demonstrates revolution theory as a philosophy of action.

Next stage of the second period or political philosophy developed after abolition from the serfdom in 1861. There were three main branches of Russian populism, leaded by M. Bakunin, P.Tkachyov and P.Lavrov. Michael Bakunin (1814-1876), author of many books, such as “Federalism, socialism and antiteleologism”, “The statehood and the anarchy”, was the founder of the Russian anarchism. He gives a materialistic explanation of social relations, statehood and culture. He proclaims of three main principles of the individual and the collective development in the history: 1) human wants which correspond to the social and private economy; 2) trend of the human thought which correlates with the science and 3) revolt which associates with the freedom. Bakunin substantiated the fundamental distinction between the society and the principle of the statehood. Society exists because of instinct of solidarity, but the statehood bases on the instincts of the power. He argues that the state opposes the individual freedom because statehood is a result of violence and wars, and that is why state is a temporal form of a society’s organization which connects with the exploitation, privileges and the system of injustice. That is why he demands immediate transition to the out-of-state society. Unlike other currents of populism, theory of Bakunin believes in the existence of socialist instinct in the peasantry, which needs just organization by intelligentsia. On one hand, he believes that Russian peasants are native rebels; on the other hand, he points negative sides of people’s ideal, such as patriarchal character, faith in God and the validity of the royal power. So, main point of his anarchy theory is a contradiction between the democracy of social goals and the elitist individualism in achievement them.

Please read the text of Michael Bakunin and translate it into English:

Свобода! Только свобода, для каждого и для всех! Вот наша мораль и наша единственная религия. Свобода – характерная черта человека, это то, что его отличает от диких животных. В ней заключено единственное доказательство его человечности... Это длительный и постепенный переход от рабства к свободе, к величию, к совершенству, к действительной свободе – вот в чём смысл истории. Быть свободным – это право, долг, всё достоинство, всё счастье, всё назначение человека. Это – исполнение его предназначения. Быть неспособным к свободе – значит быть неспособным к человечности… Наконец, свобода является истинной и полной только в целостной взаимосвязи каждого и всех. Нет изолированной свободы, она по своей природе взаимна и социальна… И поскольку моя свобода, чтобы быть полной и действительной, должна отражаться в свободе всех, наличие хотя бы одного человека, менее свободного, чем я, стесняет, уродует, ограничивает и отрицает мою свободу. Всякое посягательство на свободу отдельного индивида, а тем более нации, есть покушение на моё право и на моё человеческое естество… Отсюда следует, что полная свобода каждого возможна лишь при действительном равенстве всех. Осуществление свободы в равенстве – это и есть справедливость… Человеческое общество, которое при зарождении было естественным фактом, предшествовавшим свободе и пробуждению человеческой мысли, и позднее стало религиозным фактом, организованным по принципу Божественного и человеческого авторитета, должно сегодня получить новый образ на основе свободы, которая отныне должна стать единственным образующим принципом его политической и экономической организации. Порядок в обществе должен быть равнодействующей всех местных, коллективных и индивидуальных свобод, достигших возможно высшей степени развития.

Михаил Александрович Бакунин. Избранные философские сочинения и письма. М., 1987. С.268-275.

The next branch of the Russian populism, theory of revolutionary terror, supported by followers of O. Blanque (1805-1881), so called blanquism, was developed by Peter Tkachyov (1844-1886), the author of many popular articles, such as “The tasks of revolutionary propaganda in Russia”, “The revolution and the State”, “The people and the revolution”, “The anarchic state”, “The revolution and the principle of nationality” and many others. His radical philosophy considers a technology for the capturing of political power and the destruction of the state by the actions of so-called “conscious minority”. He believed that there were necessary conditions of revolution in Russia: the communal structure and the Communist instinct of the people. In contrast to Bakunin, Tkachyov didn’t believe in the revolutionary power of the Russian peasantry, characterized it as a passive conservative social force. He called for a revolution in the name of people, but without people. As distinct from anarchism, Tkachyov didn’t reject the idea of state power. On the contrary, he believed that the state power is necessary in the post-revolutionary period of the building of a socialist society. Thus, his theory demonstrates a belief in the political factor of social progress and hope that using a state of the dictatorship of the revolutionaries can change not only the social environment but also human nature.

The third branch of the Russian populism, headed by sociologist and writer Peter Lavrov (1823-1900) can be characterized as a theory of “Russian peasant socialism”. His historical and sociological analysis of the genesis and the evolution of the state and features of functioning of the state power after the social revolution described in such books as “Historical letters”, “The state component in the future society”, “The social revolution and the tasks of morality” and others. Lavrov determines the subject of philosophy as a human being in his social development. Also he describes three main stages of the historical progress: 1) the gradual process of achievement for a domination of human being over the nature; 2) the establishment of the kingdom of human being over the animal world; 3) elimination in the society of the struggle for existence with the reasonable cooperation replacing competition. As sociologist, Lavrov used so-called “subjective method”, analyzing the evolution of forms of solidarity between people and social ideas generated by “critically thinking individuals”. Such individuals move social and cultural progress placing before the society of moral purposes. According to Lavrov, political progress is a process of weakening of statehood in society and the transformation of political communication into the social ones. He rejects the bourgeois state as undemocratic and inhumane, but offers as its alternative the socialism with economic dictatorship and mutual social control. Thus, Lavrov underrated the role of the state and law-enforcement authorities. Populism has lost its historical actuality soon, because capitalist economy successfully developed in Russia in the XIX century. Moreover, conservative Russian peasantry did not accept ideas of the populism. So, in the moment of the collapse of the Russian populism, the era of Marxism was approaching.

The third period of development of the political philosophy of radicalism continued until the revolution in 1917. It was a period of the emergence and the maturation of the Russian Marxism. Marxism was known in Russia since 40^th years of the XIX century, but it became popular and widespread in the 80-90^th years of the XIX century. Famous philosopher, sociologist, writer, historian of social thought and culture George Plekhanov (1856-1918) became the “godfather” of Russian Marxism. He passed a difficult way from the populism to Marxism. He was a member of the populist organization “The land and the freedom”, later he formed organization “Black repartition”, but subsequently he was disappointed in the ideas of populism. After reading “The Communist Manifesto” Plekhanov came to the conclusion that Russia has already embarked on the path of the bourgeois development, that was accompanied by the growth of the proletariat and the development of its class consciousness. Marxism has got a lot of areas, but in Russia there was a politicization of the Marxist doctrine, its focus on the revolutionary practice. In his articles “Socialism and the political struggle”, “Our disputes” Plekhanov used the methodology of Marxism for analysis of the statehood, power and revolution. He believed that the materialist understanding of history could help to discover the objective laws of the social development and thereby to achieve the political freedom. In his work “The basic questions of Marxism” Plekhanov develops Marx’s understanding of relationship between the basis and the superstructure. In his opinion, the structure of society looks like the interaction of the several components: 1) the condition of the productive forces; 2) economic relations determined by the condition of the productive forces; 3) socio-political system that has grown up on this economic basis; 4) the psyche of the “social person”, determined by previous factors; 5) different ideologies, that reflect the nature of this psyche. Plekhanov also highlights the “geographic factor” as the natural conditions that contribute to the development of economic relations and the essence of the state. That is why, in his opinion, the state of Russia has got its socio-historical identity in the framework of the general laws of the common social development. So, he believed that the evolution of political institutes and legal norms of the bourgeois state and the development of the capitalist economy in Russia were required to prepare the working class for a future socialist revolution. As a representative of the orthodox Marxism, Plekhanov believed that Russia could exhaust all possibilities of capitalism before the transition to socialism, although he hoped for acceleration of the development of capitalism in Russia. That is why he argued that the Bolshevik revolution in 1917 wasn’t consistent with Marxism, because by the time the potential of capitalism in Russia wasn’t fully disclosed. His political philosophy was developed and converted by revolutionary Marxism of V. Lenin (Ulyanov), A. Lunacharsky, L. Trotsky, N. Buharin and many others, which became the ideology of revolution and building of the soviet society.

Please read the text of Plekhanov about the role of personality in the history and translate it into English:

В настоящее время последней и самой общей причиной исторического движения человечества надо признать развитие производительных сил, которыми обуславливаются последовательные изменения в общественных отношениях людей. Рядом с этой общей причиной действуют особенные причины, т.е. та историческая обстановка, при которой совершается развитие производительных сил у данного народа и которая сама создана в последней инстанции развитием тех же сил у других народов, т.е. той же общей причиной… Великий человек велик не тем, что его личностные особенности придают индивидуальную физиономию великим историческим событиям, а тем, что у него есть особенности, делающие его наиболее способным для служения великим общественным нуждам своего времени, возникшим под влиянием общих и особенных причин… Он решает научные задачи, поставленные на очередь предыдущим ходом умственного развития общества; он указывает новые общественные нужды, созданные предыдущим развитием общественных отношений; он берёт на себя почин удовлетворения этих нужд. Он – герой. Не в том смысле герой, что он будто бы может остановить или изменить естественный ход вещей, а в том, что его деятельность является сознательным и свободным выражением этого необходимого и бессознательного хода. В этом – его значение, в этом – его сила… Но кем же делается история? Она делается общественным человеком, который есть её единственный «фактор».

Плеханов Г.В. Собрание сочинений: в 24 тт. Издание: 2-е. М.-Л., 1923-1928. Т. VIII, С.304-305.

The Soviet period of the development of Russian political philosophy was a period of dialectical and historical materialism, but in this module we’re discussing some aspects of revolutionary Marxism and theory of bolshevism as the most original appearance in political philosophy and social practice. The founder of Soviet State, Vladimir Lenin (Ulyanov) (1870-1924) created many philosophical and political books and articles, transformed Marx’s theory and ideas of the Russian populism and orthodox Marxism. In his theory Lenin doesn’t accept the Marxist idea that capitalism must exhaust itself economically and politically by the time of the communist revolution. In his work “Imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism” Lenin argues that capitalism has entered into the highest and the last stage of its development – imperialism. In his opinion, the World War I could become a catalyst for destruction of imperialism. Unlike Western European social democrats, linking the beginning of the world revolution with the developed capitalist countries, Lenin believed that Russia as the weakest link in the chain of capitalism could start a world revolution. Lenin and his comrades believed in the world’s revolution, so they hadn’t special plan of the survival of the socialist state in the capitalist environment. According to classical Marxism, future communist revolution must destroy statehood and all forms of private property as tools of exploitation. In Lenin’s opinion, the institute of state could be saved during the transition period, in which the statehood and the public ownership of means of production were preserved. In the essays “Two tactics of social-democracy in the democratic revolution” (1905) and “The state and the revolution” (1917) Lenin developed the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat as the first stage of the withering away of the bourgeois and later, the proletarian state. Lenin’s supporters (and sometimes opponents) A. Bogdanov (1873-1928), A. Lunacharsky (1875-1933), L. Trotsky (1879-1940), N. Buharin (1888-1938), J. Stalin (1879-1953) created the theory of the development of the socialist state, based on the real challenges of political practice. Thus, the history if the Soviet state became the synthesis of political theory and dramatic historical circumstances.

Now let’s come back to the pre-revolutionary period in the development of political philosophy and prolong to analyze other branches of the Russian political philosophy – liberalism and conservatism. Russian liberalism was trying to defend the political rights and freedoms in conditions of the absolute monarchy. Another feature of the Russian liberalism was in the fact that at the time of its inception the serfdom maintained in Russia. Socio-philosophical foundations of liberalism were based on the concepts of “social contract”, “separation of powers”, “the rule of the law” and the “civil society”. Russian liberal thought of the XIX – beginning of the XX centuries developed the legal issues to change the legislation to enable and support the rights of citizens. Major public figures became representatives of the Russian liberalism, such as an assistant of Russian kings Alexander I and Nicholas I, the philosopher and legal scholar Michael Speransky (1772-1839), the founder of so-called “governmental liberalism”. As the request of Alexander I, he created a plan of social reforms, “Introduction to the code of the state laws”. Speransky formulates the principles of the “true monarchy”, such form of government that provides order in society and implements civil rights in strict compliance with the laws. As the political ideal he proclaims aristocratic and bourgeois monarchy, combining a strong, unified government and legislated rights and freedoms of citizens, which guarantees the equality of all people before the law. His concept has got ethical motive, he argues that the political transformation must conform to the moral enlightenment of the people. The implementation of his plan could involve the conversion of the rank system and the gradual emancipation of the peasants from serfdom. This attempt of creation of the constitution was not successful, as previous ones, because autocracy in that period didn’t seek of self-restriction and the nobility didn’t want to lose their privileges. Speransky’s ideas were applied in the reforms of the 1860s years, when Russian king Alexander II freed the peasants from serfdom, made the judicial reform and the reform of the provincial government. Paradoxically, but the most significant Russian liberal of the XIX century was Russian king Alexander II, who carried out a major transformation of the legislative system of Russia Empire. Russian liberal thought of the XIX century, represented B. Chicherin, K. Kavelin, T. Granovsky, P. Struve and others, developed from the idea of constitutional monarchy to ideas, close to social democracy. Let’s see some concepts. Philosopher, jurist, historian, writer and politician B. Chicherin created the concept of so-called “conservative liberalism”. The main goal of “conservative liberalism” was the peaceful improvement of statehood. In his books “Several modern issues” (1862), “Philosophy of the law” (1900), “A matter of politics” (1903) and others Chicherin developed a problem of the relationship between the freedom and the statehood by means of laws. In the opinion of Chicherin, the state is the highest stage of development of the society, since the spiritual foundations of the human beings – mind, will and feelings manifest themselves in public life. The most important goals of the state are the elimination of evil and contradictions in society and ensuring of safety of citizens. The state government should act as a mediator between the law and the freedom. Chicherin argued that the most reasonable form of government for Russia could be a constitutional monarchy which would coordinate the actions of the legislative, governmental and judicial authorities. Thus, the political ideal of conservative liberalism synthesized model of the relationship between monarchy and subjects with the principles of the legal state.

Philosopher and jurist K. Kavelin (1818-1885) the author of many books in philosophy of history, ethics and psychology, such as “Look at the legal life of Ancient Russia” (1847), “The task of ethics” (1884), “Topic of the day” and others, was more conservative in his liberal theory, than Chicherin. The political ideal of Kavelin was unlimited monarchy, based on the widest local freedoms. He had an opinion, that autocracy wasn’t past, but stopped doing progressive role of its methods and the organization of authorities. Therefore, there was the need to reorganize the administration, unable to cope with the responsibilities. So, Kavelin believed that the decentralization and the reform of the provincial government could create the conditions for the strengthening of the social system.

Please read the text of K.D. Kavelin, his thoughts and notes on Russian history in 19^th century, and translate into English:

За сословной организацией, по мере распространения гражданских прав на все состояния и звания, появляется общинное, земское устройство… Теперь общинное устройство узаконено во всех без изъятия крестьянских обществах… Введением земских учреждений оно сделало важный шаг вперёд, обнимая теперь уезды и губернии, и в заведывании местными делами, местными интересами, отчасти заменило сословное устройство. Таким образом, петровская эпоха была, во всех отношениях, приготовлением, при помощи европейских влияний, к самостоятельной и сознательной народной жизни. Участие европейского элемента в нашем быту было нужно не для одних практических целей, но и для нашего внутреннего развития. Люди и народы приходят к самосознанию через сравнение себя с другими, и чем предмет для сравнения лучше, краше, развитей, совершенней, тем полней и глубже человек и народ вникают в самих себя, открывают в себе неизвестные им самим, дремлющие в бездействии силы.

Кавелин К.Д. Наш умственный строй. М., 1989. С.255.

Russian liberal thinkers, such as philosophers N.A. Berdyaev, S.N. Bulgakov, P.B. Struve, S.L.Frank, sociologists N.I. Kareev, M.M. Kovalevsky, lawyers B.A. Kistiakowsky, P.I. Novgorodtsev, L.I. Petrazytscky believed that moral perfection could entail social progress and the humanization of the legal system. However, the revolution of 1917 and its aftermath didn’t demonstrate liberal way of the social progress.

Russian conservatism from the XVIII century to the early XX century developed in the forms of various ideological and cultural areas. The founders of conservatism became M.M. Sherbatov (1733-1790), who asserted the inviolability of the privileges of the Russian nobility, and the historian N.M. Karamzin (1766-1826), the ideologist of the Russian autocracy. The symbol of the Russian conservatism became the president of the Academy of Sciences and the minister of education, S.S. Uvarov (1786-1855) with his “theory of the official nationality”. He argued that the existence of the Russian society was based on the three ideologies – orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality. It looked like a continuation of the medieval ideas of the symphony of the secular and spiritual (temporal and ecclesiastical) authorities, but with the addition of a significant component of the nation. This ideology was supposed to be broadcast in public education, what would need to consolidate the unity of the Russian society. Uvarov’s followers M.P. Pogodin (1800-1875) and S.P. Shevyrev (1806-1864) developed the ideology of “official nationality”. Pogodin for the first time in the philosophy of history put forward the thesis about the fundamental difference of Russia from Western Europe, the meaning of which was that the Russian began not because of conquest, but because of calling. He believed that the Russian origins eliminated of the struggle and the revolution, he sang passivity, humility, which allegedly inherent in the “humble” people, and this people was supposedly necessary external oversight. The thesis of the opposite of origins of Russia and Western Europe has been further developed in the philosophy of history of Slavophiles. S.P. Shevyrev in his philosophical essays also cultivated the sweet delusion of the ruling classes. He eloquently urged to realize that Russia was strong because of the ancient religious feeling and the sense of state unity and national feeling. Thus, the theory of official nationality promoted the idea of the three fundamental bases of Russian life – Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality.

Please read the text of Shevyrev and translate it into English:

Там, по всем свидетельствам и признакам истории, доброе и твёрдое семейное начало легло в основу древней Русской жизни: вот, может быть, одна из причин, почему христианство так скоро и без насилия принялось на нашей почве. Кроткий быт семейный был достойным сосудом для того, чтобы воспринять и произрастить Божественно-человеческое начало истинной Религии. Скоро церковь освятила нашу древнюю семью, приняв её под своё нежное смотрение. Достойно примечания, что уставы Владимиров и Ярославов в церковных судах подчиняют всё право семейственное Церкви, предоставляя светской власти только наказание. Ни в сих уставах, ни в древнейших правилах митрополитов, которыми устраивалась внутренняя жизнь народа, мы не видим никакого следа тех жестоких обычаев, какие встречаем в подобных памятниках у народов Запада. Чудное единство древней нашей Руси, зародыш неприступного могущества нации, когда в каждой семье живёт дух целого народа, и когда весь народ сплочён в одну крепкую неразрывную семью! Семейное развитие древней Руси отражалось и во властях её… Провидение, блюдя Россию, на примере царей её указывало часто на новое назначение её жизни.

Шевырёв С.П. Об отношении семейного воспитания к государственному. М., 1842. С.65-66.

Cultural conservatism of the XIX century was represented by such movements as Slavophilism and Neo-Slavophilism, which we will discuss at length in the next module. In the period after the liberation from serfdom in 1861 ideological conservatism was shown in such direction as the “official monarchism”, represented by such political thinkers as M.H. Katkov, K. P. Pobedonostsev, L.A. Tikhomirov. Michael Katkov (1818-1887) developed his concept in response of the growing popularity of ideas of nihilism, socialism, constitutionalism and parliament type of ruling. According to Katkov, a variety of power hurts the statehood. He believed that the progress of political development was in the gathering of the authority, in the approval of autocracy. He believed that the constitutional form of the government wasn’t suitable for the Russian people because of the national psychology. He argued that the autocracy was inseparable from the national soil, with the history and future of Russia. Therefore, Katkov believed that the provincial government could become an important link to strengthen the monarchy.

Konstantin Pobedonostsev (1827-1907), the procurator of the Holy Synod (the ministry of the Russian Orthodox Church) was famous as a symbol of political reaction. After the murder of Alexander II by revolutionaries-terrorists he declared political program of the new reign. Pobedonostsev was strongly against the possibility of Constitution in Russia. He cited the example of Western Europe, where the Constitutions, in his opinion, were the instruments of injustice and all sorts of intrigues. In his book “Moscow collection” (1896) Pobedonostsev criticized the liberal idea of separation of church and state. He argued that the state couldn’t be representative of only the material interests of society, because in this case the state would be detached from spiritual unity with the people. So he proclaimed the unity of the temporal and ecclesiastical authorities. It was the reactional proposal, which would limit the autonomy of the Church as an institution of the civil society. On the other hand, Pobedonostsev hadn’t even considered the possibility of the existence of freedom of conscience and religious pluralism under the autocracy.

Ideologist of monarchism Leo Tikhomirov (1852-1923) was the author of such books, as “Monarchic statehood” (1905), “Why I stopped being a revolutionary?” (1896). He created ethic theory of monarchy. In his opinion, national psychology determines the form of government. The people’s confidence in general power is expressed in different forms: physical strength is expressed in democracy, a class-authoritative force is expressed in the aristocracy and moral power is expressed in the monarchy. Thus, he proclaimed the monarchy as the supreme authority of the moral ideal, combining the religiosity of the people and the political awareness of social system. He believed that the revolutionary mood in the society could be overcome by means of moral progress. As we know, revolutionary Russian history demonstrated the failure of the conservative monarchist ideology.

In general, we can see that the history of Russian political thought was versatile developed, and it was rich in different, often opposite, ideas, trends and directions. Revolutionary trend in Russian political thought was the most socially active and played a significant role in democratic process.

.