The main provisions of the theory of Russian socialism A.I. Herzen

On March 3, 1847, a student at Kyiv University O. Petrov reported to the authorities about a secret society that he discovered during one of the discussions held by the “brothers”. In March and April the brotherhood was crushed by the gendarmes and most of the members were imprisoned or exiled. Shevchenko was given up as a soldier, Kostomarov was exiled to Saratov.

They were able to return to literary, scientific and teaching activities only in the 1850s.

49.Russian socialism “A.I. Herzen"

At the turn of the 40-50s of the XIX century. The theory of “Russian socialism” is being formed, the founder of which was A. I. Herzen. He outlined his main ideas in works written in 1849-1853: “The Russian People and Socialism”, “The Old World and Russia”, “Russia”, “On the Development of Revolutionary Ideas in Russia”, etc.

The turn of the 40-50s was a turning point in Herzen's social views. The defeat of the revolutions of 1848-1849. in Western. Europe made a deep impression on Herzen, giving rise to disbelief in European socialism and disappointment in it. Herzen painfully searched for a way out of the ideological impasse. Comparing the destinies of Russia and the West, he came to the conclusion that in the future socialism should establish itself in Russia, and its main “cell” will be the peasant land community. Peasant communal land ownership, the peasant idea of the right to land and secular self-government will, according to Herzen, be the basis for building a socialist society. This is how Herzen’s “Russian” (communal) socialism arose.

The essence of this theory, according to Herzen, is the combination of Western science and “Russian life”, hope for the historical characteristics of the young Russian nation, as well as for the socialist elements of the rural community and workers’ artel.

The Russian peasant world, he argued, contains three principles that make it possible to carry out an economic revolution leading to socialism: 1) everyone’s right to land, 2) communal ownership of it, 3) secular management. These communal principles, embodying “elements of our everyday, immediate socialism,” wrote Herzen, hinder the development of the rural proletariat and make it possible to bypass the stage of capitalist development: “The man of the future in Russia is a man, just like a worker in France.”

In the 50s Herzen founded the Free Russian Printing House in London, where the newspaper “The Bell” was printed (since 1857), which was illegally imported into Russia.

According to Herzen, the abolition of serfdom while preserving the community would make it possible to avoid the sad experience of capitalist development in the West and move directly to socialism. “We,” wrote Herzen, “ Russian socialism we call that socialism that comes from the land and peasant life, from the actual allotment and the existing redistribution of fields, from communal ownership and communal management - and goes together with the workers' artel towards that economic justice, which socialism in general strives for and which science confirms."

Herzen considered the community that existed in Russia to be the basis, but by no means a ready-made cell of the future social order. He saw its main drawback in the absorption of the individual into the community.

The peoples of Europe, according to Herzen’s theory, developed two great principles, bringing each of them to extreme, flawed solutions: “The Anglo-Saxon peoples liberated the individual, denying the social principle, isolating man. The Russian people preserved the communal structure, denying personality, absorbing man.”

The main task, according to Herzen, is to connect individual rights with the communal structure: “To preserve the community and liberate the individual, to extend rural and volost self-government to cities, to the state as a whole, while maintaining national unity, to develop private rights and preserving the indivisibility of the land is the main question of the revolution,” wrote Herzen.

These provisions of Herzen will subsequently be adopted by the populists. Essentially, “Russian socialism” is just a dream about socialism, because the implementation of its plans would lead in practice not to socialism, but to the most consistent solution of the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic transformation of Russia - this is the real meaning of “Russian socialism”. It was focused on the peasantry as its social base, therefore it also received the name “peasant socialism”. Its main goals were to free the peasants with their land without any ransom, eliminate landlord power and landownership, introduce peasant communal self-government independent of local authorities, and democratize the country. At the same time, “Russian socialism” fought, as it were, “on two fronts”: not only against the outdated feudal-serf system, but also against capitalism, contrasting it with the specifically Russian “socialist” path of development.

50. Position of M.P. Drahomanov from the “national question”

In his opinion, the Ukrainian issue has always been hostage to Russian-Polish relations. Historically sandwiched between Poland and Russia, it is to these states that Ukraine “owes” the loss of sovereignty. Persecuted by fate, she was first under the yoke of Poland, and then, hoping to find support for her liberation struggle in Russia, she paid for this erroneous opinion by falling under the yoke of the Russian Tsar. And subsequently, Ukraine became a bargaining chip in the confrontation between Poland and Russia. Even after Poland itself was defeated and became part of the Russian Empire, neither Russian nor Polish public opinion recognized the equality of Ukrainians with other Slavic peoples. It would seem that. the obvious idea of a union of the Polish, Russian and Ukrainian revolutionary movements in the fight against tsarism could not be realized. The reason for this is the great power aspirations of Polish and Russian revolutionaries.

The Russian socialist movement, according to M.P. Drahomanov, was “sick” of great power, like the rest of Russian society as a whole.

M.P. Drahomanov argued that Russian socialists always considered the national question to be secondary to the social one. Ultimately, this transformed into the idea of centralism, i.e. subordination of all revolutionary organizations to Great Russians. and the possibility of realizing the socialist idea only within the framework of the Great Russian state.

Works by M.P. Drahomanov caused a wave of indignation among Russian socialists and gave rise to a heated debate. Articles by V.N. Cherkezova, P.N. Tkachev are full of reproaches and accusations that M.P. Drahomanov introduces hostility into the revolutionary movement and replaces the struggle for social interests with nationalist slogans.

M.P. program Dragomanova envisioned the transformation of Russia into a federal state with broad autonomy for the peoples inhabiting it. The principles of building a federation according to Drahomanov are close to the ideas of M.A. Bakunin, whose “communal federalism” did not exclude taking into account national settlement.

In his socio-political views, Drahomanov was a prominent representative of the Ukrainian intelligentsia of the 1870s. In the area of the national question, he combined the federalist aspirations of the revolutionary-minded representatives of the then Ukrainian intelligentsia with the vague individualistic cosmopolitanism of the democratic trend. Having broken with the Kyiv Ukrainian community on this basis and opposed the centralistic tendencies of the then populism, Drahomanov eventually became abroad an exponent of liberal constitutional tendencies, the organ of which was the newspaper “Volnoe Slovo”, which Drahomanov edited.

This organ of Russian constitutionalists, which was actually published with funds in connection with the third branch of the “Holy Squad,” did not find any ground and soon ceased to exist. Despite its only one-year existence, Drahomanov's newspaper influenced the subsequent development of liberal constitutional thought.

Drahomanov was a supporter of the formation of a federal state, which, on the basis of administrative decentralism, cultural-national autonomy, and broad integrative ties, would resolve the national issue in a democratic way. He saw the then structure of Switzerland, the USA, and England as a model for his education. He was a supporter of recognizing the primacy of universal cultural values over national characteristics. At the same time, Drahomanov did not deny the broad influence of national traditions on the formation of the cultural heritage of peoples.

The scientist considered the loss of national statehood by Ukraine as a factor that negatively influenced the fate of the Ukrainian people. At the same time, pointing to the historical rights of Ukrainians to self-determination, he did not believe in the possibility of restoring national statehood, and therefore sought to direct the Ukrainian social movement to the struggle for democratization and federalization within the framework of the Russian Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy.

The idea of socialism still remains attractive to a huge number of our fellow citizens. Some see in it a return to the “stable” past, others see it as an aspiration to a “bright” future. Some are going to use the “technologies” of socialism in the interests of the national state. In order to understand the prospects of this idea, it is necessary to trace the historical path of socialism in Russia

Socialism (from the Latin socialis, i.e. “social”), as is clear from the name, is a political-economic order based on the predominance of society. Within the framework of socialism, both the individual and the state are viewed as something subordinate, designed to express only the will of the collective. This is its main difference from conservatism, which puts the state first, and liberalism, which puts the individual at the forefront.

In practice, the implementation of socialism led either to an exaggerated strengthening of the state (communists) or to a certain softening of the individualism of the liberal system (social democrats). This is due to the fact that socialism sets itself purely utopian goals. A huge mass of people cannot manage social development; only leaders can do this, as well as groups that either specialize in management (bureaucracy) or have an elite status that gives them great material wealth and high education (aristocracy, bourgeoisie). Therefore, these groups inevitably intercept the slogans and technologies of the socialists, using them for their own purposes. The utopia of socialism presupposes either the withering away of the state (Marxists) or its abolition (anarchism). In the system of Marxism, socialism is declared to be just the first phase of communism, which must inevitably lead to the withering away of states, nations, and families.

It is quite obvious that this situation makes socialism unacceptable from the point of view of conservatism. At the same time, socialists put forward a position that is attractive to conservatism, naturally, subject to its appropriate reinterpretation. We are talking about the demand to end the exploitation of man by man, uniting society in solving the most important tasks of a spiritual, political and economic nature. Indeed, according to conservatism, contradictions within a nation (state, empire) should be minimal, which is impossible without a significant limitation of exploitation, which gives rise to these contradictions. Therefore, this demand for socialism is often adopted by various movements in conservatism. This is how the theories of “religious”, “national”, “state”, “feudal”, etc. socialism are born.

In Russia, the development of socialism was a rather complex and specific process. Socialist ideas began to penetrate into our country in the 30s of the 19th century from the West. The Russian educated public became acquainted with the works of famous utopian socialists - C. Fourier, R. Owen, C. Saint-Simon. This prompted her to make rather radical demands. In 1845, a minor official of the Russian Foreign Ministry, M.V. Butashevich-Petrashevsky, organized a circle whose participants took positions close to socialism. At the beginning, the activities of the circle were purely educational in nature. Then the Petrashevites came to the idea of the need for an armed uprising and began to carry out corresponding organizational work in the troops. As a result, the circle was crushed by the police. Thus, almost from the very beginning of its existence, domestic socialism showed itself to be an enemy of Russian tradition.

Meanwhile, at first it still retained many traditional and national features. One of the leading theorists of the so-called. “revolutionary democracy” A.I. Herzen, created the theory of “Russian socialism”. According to it, Russia had to come to the implementation of a socialist utopia through the community. The preservation of communal institutions was seen as a benefit that sharply distinguishes our country from the bourgeois-individualistic West. It is Russia, according to Herzen, that will become the first country where socialism will triumph. Recognizing the uniqueness of Russia, Herzen at the same time gave it some kind of primitive character: “In a moral sense, we are freer than Europeans, and this is not only because we are spared the great trials through which the development of the West goes, but also because that we do not have a past that would subjugate us. Our history is poor...” He considered communal life primitive and devoid of any structural diversity. This “circumstance” was supposed to facilitate the transition to equal distribution throughout Russia.

Herzen’s ideas formed the basis of the ideological and political movement of populism, which was able to create strong organizational structures - “Land and Freedom”, “People’s Will”, “Black Redistribution”, etc. The populists believed that Russia could come to socialism, bypassing capitalism, because It has preserved institutions that are socialist in nature - the community and the artel. It is curious that their views on the fate of Russian socialism coincided with the views of Marx, which he developed in his later period. Marx was convinced that socialism could not be achieved without a long period of development of capitalism. The result will be the emergence of a powerful working class that will socialize property. But for Russia, Marx made an exception, due to the presence of a community, a ready-made socialist institution. He expressed these thoughts in his letter to V. Zasulich.

Populists sometimes put forward demands of an original traditionalist nature (for example, the convening of a Zemsky Sobor). They often called themselves Russian patriots, but often reduced all their patriotism to criticism of the supposedly Germanized bureaucracy and the demand for freedom for “oppressed” minorities, primarily the Poles. They declared the monarchy as an entity alien to the Russian people and which grew out of “Byzantism,” “Tatarism,” or “Germanism.” In essence, their “patriotism” turned into a denial of the need for a strong national statehood. It is characteristic that among the populists there was a very strong influence of the ideas of anarchism, and some of the leaders of populism were outspoken anarchists (such as M. A. Bakunin).

Many populists directly denied the need for patriotism. M.V. Butashevich-Petrashevsky argued: “Socialism is a cosmopolitan doctrine, standing above nationalities: for a socialist, the difference between nationalities disappears, there is only the people.” He believed that in the future all differences between peoples would disappear. Narodnik P.L. Lavrov wrote: nationality in itself “is not the enemy of socialism as a modern state; this is nothing more than an occasional aid or an occasional hindrance to the activities of socialism.” Sometimes a socialist may even present himself as a “zealous nationalist” in order to attract his fellow tribesmen to the ideas of socialism. But as a result of the implementation of these ideas, national differences will be overcome and will become just “a pale legend of history, without practical meaning.” But the opinion of the populist L.N. Tkachev is a socialist “on the one hand... must promote everything that favors the elimination of partitions separating peoples, everything that smoothes out and weakens national characteristics; on the other hand, he must most energetically oppose everything that strengthens and develops these features. And he cannot do otherwise.”

Cosmopolitanism developed within the framework of socialism (both foreign and domestic) not by chance. It was determined by the idea of the predominance of the social principle. Various social groups in different countries and among different peoples are the same. Everywhere has its own aristocracy, its own merchants, its own hired workers, etc. The differences between them are determined by national specifics, which are protected by the state. It is the state, rising above social groups with their narrow interests, that is able to see and express what is common to the aristocrat, entrepreneur and worker. This commonality distinguishes them from aristocrats, entrepreneurs and workers who belong to other people. If either society (socialism) or groups of its individuals (liberalism) rise above the state, then people cease to notice the difference between social groups in their own country and abroad. They will inevitably strive for cosmopolitan intermingling. And parties that put forward the idea of the predominance of the public or personal principle will inevitably act as cosmopolitan parties.

In the 80s of the XIX century, the formation of the Marxist wing in Russian socialism began. The “Emancipation of Labor” group emerges, headed by the former populist G. V. Plekhanov. Finally, in 1898, the First Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (RSDLP) was held. Russian Marxists believed that the victory of the socialist revolution was possible only after capitalism had completely exhausted its potential and turned the majority into the proletariat. Then the proletarian majority will quite easily overthrow the bourgeoisie. This was the general scheme, which, however, was interpreted differently by different Marxists. The “right” wing of the RSDLP, the so-called. “Mensheviks” (G.V. Plekhanov, P.B. Axelrod, Yu.O. Martov and others) believed that the period of development of capitalism should be quite long. For a long time, power should belong to the bourgeoisie, which would overthrow the autocracy with the help of the working class (the Mensheviks did not consider the peasantry a revolutionary force) and carry out the necessary liberal-democratic transformations.

The left wing (“Bolsheviks”), led by V.I. Lenin, believed that Russia had already walked sufficiently along the path of capitalism. It is possible and necessary to fight both against autocracy and capitalism. But this is possible only if there is an alliance between the working class and the peasantry.

And the “centrist” L. D. Trotsky did not rely on either the bourgeoisie or the peasantry. He placed his aspirations only on the Western proletariat.

The Marxists were characterized by capitalism, which was much more radical in nature. Thus, Lenin wrote: “The proletarian party strives for rapprochement and further fusion of nations.” According to him, “national movements are reactionary, because the history of mankind is the history of class struggle, while nations are an invention of the bourgeoisie.”

At the beginning of the 20th century, populism, which was crushed by the police, was revived in Russia. In 1901-1906. The Socialist Revolutionary Party (AKP, leaders - V. M. Chernov, N. D. Avksentyev, etc.) is formed. Unlike the old populists, the Socialist Revolutionaries recognized that Russia had nevertheless entered the capitalist period of its development. But at the same time, they believed that capitalism itself affected Russian society very superficially. This is especially true in villages where the community and small peasant farming, for the most part, are labor-based, are preserved. It is in the agrarian sphere that new socialist relations will be born, which will become possible thanks to the nationalization of land, its equal distribution and subsequent cooperation. Throughout their existence, various left and “right” groups (maximalists, internationalist Socialist Revolutionaries, popular socialists) split off from the Socialist Revolutionaries.

In 1917, after the February Revolution, the Socialist Revolutionaries turned into the most massive and influential party - thanks to their reliance on the peasantry. In the summer of 1917, it consisted of about a million people. However, its leadership was never able to develop its own original view of the fate of socialism and Russia. The Social Revolutionaries followed the much weaker, organizationally speaking, Mensheviks. The latter convinced of the need for a long stage of development of capitalism (in the presence of the broadest and most socially oriented democracy). But the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries did not take into account the polarization of Russian society. It was divided between those who were ready to accept the radical program of the Bolsheviks, and those who were ready for radical opposition to the Soviets - in the ranks of the national liberal White movement.

The Social Revolutionaries and Mensheviks tried to become a “third force” offering a democratic way out of the systemic crisis. At the same time, they advocated weakening the state in favor of public structures. In this they were much to the left of the Bolsheviks, who, in order to maintain their power, were forced to strengthen the influence of state mechanisms. At the same time, the Socialist-Revolutionaries-Mensheviks reproached the Bolsheviks for the revival of autocracy and national isolationism (according to them, the movement towards socialism was possible only as a movement of the entire world proletariat, which had yet to be fully formed).

Their particular rage was caused by the use in the Red Army of military specialists who began their careers in tsarist times. In this they “Per-Trotskyized” Trotsky himself, who (for reasons of pragmatism) was a supporter of the active involvement of specialists. At a meeting of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee on April 22, 1918, Trotsky’s proposal to use officers and generals of the old army was met with criticism from both the “left communists” and the “right” Mensheviks. The leaders of the latter, F. Dan and Martov, accused the Bolsheviks of almost forming a bloc with the “counter-revolutionary military.” And Martov generally suspected Trotsky of clearing the way for Kornilov.

In April 1918, the Menshevik newspaper “Forward” openly stood in solidarity with the “left communists” protesting against the strengthening of labor discipline at enterprises that had not undergone nationalization: “Alien from the very beginning of a truly proletarian character, the policy of the Soviet government has recently more and more openly taken the path of agreement with the bourgeoisie and takes on a clearly anti-worker character... This policy threatens to deprive the proletariat of its main achievements in the economic field and make it a victim of limitless exploitation by the bourgeoisie.” The Mensheviks greeted the announcement of the new economic policy with hostility, regarding this completely timely and pragmatic measure as a capitulation to the bourgeoisie.

The masses did not accept the Socialist Revolutionary-Menshevik “third way” and Russia followed the path proposed by the Bolshevik Party. In the 30s, J.V. Stalin (in a fierce struggle against Trotskyism and other ultra-left movements) significantly adjusted the direction of this path, using socialism as a powerful lever for creating a strong state. After his death, the development of socialist theory in the USSR was practically completed, which plunged the country into a state of stagnation. In the 80-90s, it naturally ended with the collapse of Soviet socialism.

Alexander Eliseev

In the 30s of the XIX century. ideas of utopian socialism begin to develop in Russia. Utopian socialism is understood as the totality of those teachings that expressed the idea of the desirability and possibility of establishing a social system where there will be no exploitation of man by man and other forms of socialist inequality.

Utopian socialism differed from other utopias in that the idea of general, true equality was born and developed in it. It was supposed to build this ideal society on the basis or taking into account the achievements of material and spiritual culture that bourgeois civilization brought with it. A new interpretation of the social ideal: coincidence, combination of personal and public interests. Socialist thought took special forms in Russia, developed by Russian thinkers who wanted to “adapt” the general principles of socialism to the conditions of their fatherland. The inconsistency was manifested primarily in the fact that the main form of utopian socialism in Russia naturally turned out to be peasant socialism (“Russian”, communal, populist), which acted as an ideological expression of the interests of revolutionary and democratic, but still bourgeois development.

The founder of Russian socialism was Alexander Ivanovich Herzen (1812-1870). Herzen associated his spiritual awakening with the Decembrist uprising. The “new world” that opened up to the fourteen-year-old boy was not yet clearly conscious. But this uprising awakened in Herzen’s soul the first, albeit still vague, revolutionary aspirations, the first thoughts about the struggle against injustice, violence, and tyranny.

“The awareness of the unreasonableness and cruelty of the autocratic political regime developed in Herzen an insurmountable hatred of all slavery and tyranny.”

Herzen was of great interest in the philosophy of history. In the early 40s he comes to the conclusion that where there is no philosophy as a science, there cannot be a solid, consistent philosophy of history. This opinion was associated with the idea of philosophy that he formed as a result of his acquaintance with the philosophy of Hegel. He was not interested in the theoretical basis of philosophy; it interested him insofar as it could be applied in practice. Herzen found in Hegel's philosophy the theoretical basis for his enmity with the existing; he revealed the same thesis about the rationality of reality in a completely different way: if the existing social order is justified by reason, then the struggle against it is justified - this is a continuous struggle between the old and the new. As a result of studying Hegel's philosophy, Herzen came to the conclusion that: the existing Russian reality is unreasonable, therefore the struggle against it is justified by reason. Understanding modernity as a struggle of reason, embodied in science, against irrational reality, Herzen accordingly builds an entire concept of world history, reflected both in the work “Amateurism in Science” and in “Letters on the Study of Nature.” He saw in Hegelian philosophy the highest achievement of the reason of history, understood as the spirit of humanity. Herzen contrasted this reason embodied in science with unreasonable, immoral reality.

In Hegel's philosophy he found justification for the legitimacy and necessity of the struggle against the old and the final victory of the new. In Herzen's work, the idea of the rationality of history was combined with socialist ideals, bringing German philosophy closer to French utopian socialism. The point of connection between socialism and philosophy in Herzen’s work is the idea of the harmonious integrity of man. The idea of unity and being was also considered by Herzen in socio-historical terms, as the idea of unifying science and the people, which will mark socialism. Herzen wrote that when the people understand science, they will go out to the creative creation of socialism.

The problem of the unity of being and thinking appears on another level - as a revolutionary practice, as a conscious act, as the introduction and embodiment of science in life. He saw the mastery of science by the masses as a necessary condition for the establishment of socialism. Since science contains the germ of a new world, one has only to introduce it to the masses and the cause of socialism will be secured. Herzen's socialism was utopian. Arguing in this way, he even raised in general terms the question of the possibility for Russia to be the first to embark on the path of radical social transformation: “...maybe we, who have lived little in the past, will be representatives of the real unity of science and life, word and deed.

Essentially, this hope was not based on any factual data; his references to the special qualities of the Russian national character were not serious.

Herzen's use of abstract philosophical ideas to justify revolution and socialism means that philosophy here ceases to be philosophy itself. It becomes a social doctrine, a theory of the revolutionary struggle for socialism. The forward movement of thought consisted in the recognition of the pattern of struggle in society and the need for rational education of the masses with science. Having mastered Hegel's dialectics, he realized that it was the “algebra of revolution,” but he went further to historical materialism.

At the end of the 40s, Herzen connected all his thoughts about future socialist development with Western Europe. Revolution of 1848-49 was the most important event in Herzen's life. He perceived the revolution as the beginning of a socialist revolution. But what happened before Herzen’s eyes in Paris in 1848 did not at all coincide with his idea of a socialist revolution. The mass of the people was not ready for the immediate organization of a truly new republic. The result was defeat. Herzen was overcome by doubts about the possibility of the rapid implementation of socialism, but he still hoped that the people would soon rise to fight again and put an end to the old civilization forever. But Herzen's hopes were not justified. Having perceived the uprising of the Parisian proletariat in June 1848 as the beginning of the “dying” of Europe and postponing the establishment of socialism in Western European countries to the indefinitely distant future, Herzen did not stop searching for opportunities to achieve the great ideal.

Herzen found the state most capable of social transformation in his homeland. “Faith in Russia saved me on the brink of moral death...” said Herzen. The Russians are significantly behind Europe; historical events swept over these people. But this is his happiness. “The Russian people have preserved their mighty soul, their great national character.” He fixed his gaze on the Russian community. “The community saved the Russian people from Mongol barbarism and from imperial civilization, from European-style landowners and from the German bureaucracy. The community organization, although greatly shaken, resisted government intervention; she lived happily until the development of socialism in Europe.” In the patriarchal community, Herzen saw a means of radical social transformation, a real element of socialism. Herzen developed the theory of “communal”, “peasant”, “Russian” socialism as an integral, complete doctrine. He believed that the combination of Western European socialist ideas with the Russian communal world would ensure the victory of socialism and renew Western European civilization.

The ideas of “Russian socialism” were first presented by Herzen in the article “Russia” (Aug. 1848), written in the form of a letter to G. Herwegh. The term “Russian socialism” itself arose much later: Herzen introduced it only in 1866 in the article “Order triumphs!” “We call Russian socialism that socialism that comes from the land and peasant life, from the actual allotment and the existing redistribution of fields, from communal ownership and general management - and goes together with the workers’ artel towards the economic justice that socialism in general strives for and which science confirms.

Herzen did not leave a story about exactly how the turn to a new view took place in his thought, how the main principles of the theory of “Russian socialism” took shape and developed. The general answer to this question is known: “Russian socialism” arose as a result of the spiritual drama experienced by Herzen during the revolution of 1848, as a result of disappointment in the possibility of the imminent victory of socialism in Western Europe and the desire to find other possible ways of realizing the socialist ideal.

In the development of ideas, two main stages can be distinguished: the 50s and 60s. The milestone between them is 1861. This division does not fully reflect the development of “Russian socialism”. Within each period there were certain milestones that made it possible to trace this development in more detail.

The pre-reform period (1849-1960) in the development of the ideas of “Russian socialism” begins in 1849 because the first more or less systematized presentation of them in the article “Russia” dates back to this year. The fifth letter from the series “Letters from France and Italy” (December 1847) is interesting. Herzen expresses regret over the absence in Europe of a “village commune” similar to the Russian one, and exclaims: “Long live, gentlemen, the Russian village - its future is great.”

Firstly, democracy, or “communism” (i.e. collectivism) in managing the life of a rural artel. At their meetings, “in peace,” the peasants decide the general affairs of the village, elect local judges, a headman who cannot act contrary to the will of the “peace.” This general management of everyday life is due to the fact - and this is the second point characterizing the community as the embryo of socialism - that people use the land together. They cultivate it together, share meadows, pastures, and forests. This communal land use seemed to Herzen the embryo of conscious collective ownership. Herzen also saw an element of socialism in peasant rights to land, i.e. in the right of every peasant to a plot of land, which the community must provide him with for use. He cannot and has no need to pass it on by inheritance. His son, as soon as he reaches adulthood, acquires the right, even during his father’s lifetime, to demand a land plot from the community. A peasant who leaves his community for a while does not lose his rights to the land; it can be taken away from him only in the event of expulsion - this is decided by a secular gathering. If a peasant leaves the community of his own free will, he loses the right to an allotment. He is allowed to take his movable property with him. This right to land seemed to Herzen a sufficient condition for the life of the community. It excluded, in his opinion, the emergence of a landless proletariat.

Community collectivism and the right to land constituted, according to Herzen, those real embryos from which, subject to the abolition of serfdom and the elimination of autocratic despotism, a socialist society could develop. Herzen believed, however, that the community itself does not represent any socialism. Due to its patriarchal nature, it is devoid of development in its present form; For centuries, the communal system has lulled the people's personality; in the community it is humiliated, its horizons are limited to the life of the family and the village. In order to develop the community as the embryo of socialism, it is necessary to apply Western European science to it, with the help of which only the negative, patriarchal aspects of the community can be eliminated.

“The task of the new era into which we are entering,” Herzen wrote, “is to develop an element on the basis of the science of our communal self-government to complete freedom of the individual, bypassing those intermediate forms through which the development of the West necessarily went, wandering along unknown paths. Our new life must weave these two inheritances into one fabric in such a way that a free person will have the earth under his feet and so that the community member will be a completely free person.” Thus, Herzen did not consider Russia’s path to socialism through the community as an exception to the experience of global development. He considered the possible rapid implementation of socialism in Russia, first of all, as an aid to the world revolution; after all, it is impossible without the destruction of Russian tsarism, without the emancipation of Russia. Europe is never destined to be free." But Herzen notes that in Russian life there is something higher than the community, and stronger than power. He sees this “something” in the “internal” force, not fully aware of itself, which “independent of all external events and in spite of them, preserved the Russian people and supported their indestructible faith in themselves.” Now the idea of the absence of a firmly established “past” in Russia becomes one of the most important principles of “Russian socialism.”

Developing the theory of “Russian socialism,” Herzen thought that he had finally managed to actually substantiate socialism. Having seen in the community the material embryo of a society of social equality, Herzen believed that he had overcome the utopianism of the former socialists, that from now on not only the justice and reasonableness of socialism was proven, but also the possibility and reality of its actual implementation. Herzen writes: “...I see no reason why Russia must necessarily undergo all phases of European development; I also do not see why the civilization of the future must invariably submit to the same conditions of existence as the civilization of the past.”

The article “Russia” is the first sketch of the ideas of “Russian socialism”, just a sketch, a quick sketch, designed mainly to draw attention to the problems posed in it, to awaken interest in Russia and point out the need for its study. With him, Herzen’s activities began, aimed at “introducing Europe to Russia.”

One of the major milestones of this work is marked by the book “On the Development of Revolutionary Ideas in Russia. Herzen begins the first chapter “Russia and Europe” with a mention of the article “Russia” and says: “...our views have not changed since that time.” The main thing in this work by Herzen from the point of view of the development of the ideas of “Russian socialism” is that here for the first time, and in essence the only time, the author tries to substantiate his idea in such a systematic and consistent manner with the course of historical development of Russia. In an attempt to provide a historical substantiation of the ideas of “Russian socialism,” Herzen argues that Russia has “two reasons for living: the socialist element and youth.” In the book he tried to prove this thesis about the organic, durable, non-crushing nature of the “socialist element” of Russian life - the rural community. Herzen believed that the history of Russia to date is only “the history of the embryonic development of the Slavic state,” “the path to an unknown future that is beginning to dawn.” This thesis occupied an important place in the theory of “Russian socialism”. But in the internal history of the country, in the development of social forms and political institutions, the strengths and capabilities of the Russian people were not revealed with sufficient completeness. This shows the entire course of Russian history. Autocracy and serfdom are two main factors of Russian life, which removed the people from active participation in the social and political life of the country and fettered their forces. The idea of the “youth” of the Russian people, which Herzen tried to prove here, was essentially a form in which the consciousness of the contradiction between the fact of the economic and political backwardness of the country and the potential possibilities of broad, progressive development was expressed.

Thanks to the rural community, Russia turned out to be more capable of socialist transformation than the West.

Herzen simply states here the fact that the community survived in the course of Russian history, and concludes that the existence of the community ensures the country's transition to a new, social social order. Two ideas developed in this book were of significant importance for the theory of “Russian socialism”. This is, firstly, the assertion that the antagonistic socialist structure characteristic of modern Russia was not originally characteristic of the country. It is the result of the enslavement of the peasants and arose, in essence, as a result of the legalization of serfdom under Peter I. By the fact that Peter I finally tore the nobility away from the people and granted them terrible power over the peasants, he instilled in the people the deepest antagonism that had not existed before, and if he was, but only to a weak degree. Later, in the book “Baptized Property,” Herzen wrote: “The unity of Russian life was torn apart by Peter’s coup. The two Russias became hostile against each other from the beginning of the eighteenth century. On the one hand there was governmental, imperial Russia, rich in money, armed not only with bayonets, but with all the administrative and police tricks taken from Germany; on the other hand, Rus' is “the black people, poor, arable, communal, democratic, unarmed, taken by surprise, defeated, in fact, without a fight.” This view of the origin of socialist transformations in Russia led to an unequal semantic conclusion. Its consequence was a revolutionary demand to eliminate the existing “bifurcation” of Russia.

From the point of view of the development of the ideas of “Russian socialism”, the assessment of the Decembrist movement contained in the book “On the Development of Revolutionary Ideas in Russia” is interesting.

Considering this movement as the first, truly revolutionary opposition to the autocracy, Herzen sees in its failure not only evidence of the strength that Russian absolutism has to fight the revolution, but mainly a consequence of the “complete gap” between the “two Russias.” After the defeat of the Decembrists, no illusions were possible: “the people remained indifferent spectators on December 14.”

The great question of Russian social development for Herzen was to reunite the connection between the “two camps”; he believed that to resolve this issue, it was necessary to involve land ownership in the revolution; the peasant can and wants to be free only by owning his own land. This is how Herzen outlines the idea of “the right to land” as the basis for the rapprochement of the “two Russias”. The idea will occupy an important place in his “Russian socialism”.

Further development of the ideas of “Russian socialism” can be found in Herzen’s letter to J. Michelet “Russian people and socialism” (1851). Here Herzen repeats previously expressed thoughts about socialism: “about the youth” of the Russian people, about their right to the future, about that this right is based on the facts of the existence of a rural community corresponding to socialism “about the liberation of the land”, the destruction of serfdom as the beginning of the socialist revolution in Russia. Starting from this article, the theory of “Russian socialism” is based not only on the fact of the existence of a rural community in Russia as a “socialist element” in the Russian social system, but also on the conviction of a certain role of this fact for the future destinies of the country. This role is associated with the fact that Russia is a rural, agrarian country and will remain so in the future. In this letter, one of the important provisions of “Russian socialism” was formulated for the first time, that “the man of the future in Russia is a man, just like a worker in France.”

Such views on the prospects for historical development in Russia are associated with a number of utopian features of the theory of “Russian socialism”, first of all, an underestimation of the importance of industrial development in Russia and a misunderstanding of the progressive role of Russian cities.

Three articles by Herzen entitled “Russian serfdom” (1852) are devoted to the problem of serfdom. From the point of view of the development of the ideas of “Russian socialism”, this work of Herzen is interesting in two respects: firstly, in its polemics with Haxthausen on questions about the nature of rural communal Russia: and, secondly, in raising questions about the development of Russia along the path to socialism perhaps without the formation of a class of landless proletarians. Haxthausen argued that the entire social and political life of the Russian people is based on the patriarchal principle, that the Russian people were originally a nomadic, pastoral people and only later switched to agriculture. He considered the main thing in patriarchal life to be respect for the head of the community, since the Russian people could not exist without a head - the tsar; The Russian people love the authority of the head of the family, the elder, the tsar. Herzen refuted his opinion about the rural community, the political structure of Russia and the character of the Russian people.

The development of the ideas of “Russian socialism” in articles on Russian serfdom consisted, first of all, in upholding the idea of the Russian rural community as a “socialist element”, contrary to the opinion about the “patriarchal” nature of the community, it meant at the same time an assertion of the incompatibility of the free development of the community with serfdom.” .

In “Russian serfdom,” for the first time, notes of polemic begin to sound, directed not against the understanding of the community in the spirit of the “official nationality,” but against the liberal-Western “denial” of the community. He writes in this work that the community is accused of being incompatible with personal freedom. But is there really a lack of this freedom felt before the abolition of St. George’s Day... Didn’t mobile communities develop along with permanent settlements - a free artel and a purely military community of Cossacks? The unruly rural community left quite wide scope for personal freedom and initiative. Cossack communities did not absorb or suppress the individual.”

In the article “Baptized Property,” Herzen writes that “that Russian life found in itself the means to partially compensate for this deficiency. Rural life formed next to the stationary community, the arable, peaceful village, a mobile community - the military community of the Cossacks.”

He noted the special character of the Russian peasant, determined by the communism of his communal structure and his village self-government. Communism of the Russian village lay, according to Herzen, at the basis of the Russian social order. Unity, expressed in a communal structure, will save the Russian people. But in both works he stipulates that socialist aspirations cannot find satisfaction either in the communal structure of the Russian village or in the “republican” structure of Cossack settlements.

The destruction of the community (and it is inevitable in the case of the liberation of peasants without land) would lead to the emergence of 20 million proletarians, moreover, rural proletarians, who, in his opinion, are not revolutionaries at all, like their urban counterparts. Those are wrong, he argues, “who would rejoice at the formation of the proletariat, because “We would see in it a piece of revolutionary development; it is not enough to be a proletariat to make a revolution.” These arguments by Herzen express the idea characteristic of “Russian socialism” about the possibility of avoiding in Russia the development of a landless proletariat, and thereby the insecurity of life, which is inseparable from existence.

Herzen's main concern was how to help the revolution at home from afar. To this end, he founded the Free Russian Printing House in London in 1853, which marked the beginning of the Russian uncensored press, where they began to print and distribute individual works and leaflets that contributed to the development of the political self-awareness of Russian society.

The means of Herzen’s propaganda were both the work “On the Development of Revolutionary Ideas in Russia” and the epic book “The Past and the Duma”, work on which lasted 6 years (1852-1858).

At the end of June 1853, the first proclamation “St. George's Day! St. George's Day! with the subtitle “To the Russian nobility.” The proclamation amazingly combined elements of noble revolutionism with revolutionary democracy. Herzen wrote that there is no “fatal necessity” for every step forward for the people to be marked by piles of corpses. Baptism of blood is a great thing; every success must certainly pass through it.”

The new orientation of Herzen’s works towards the Russian public will not appear immediately. In the magazine “English Republic”, a work will appear that has occupied an important place in the development of “Russian socialism”. It was written in the form of letters to an Englishman and published under the title “The Old World and Russia.” Many of his thoughts are repeated in this work. We are talking here about the youth of the Slavs, about the Russian people as an “agricultural” people, about the rural community as a “socialist element” of Russian life, about the need to preserve the community and develop the “personal principle,” about the role of the nobility in the development of revolutionary ideas in Russia. But the most important thing is that these “Letters” are known in the history of Russian thought for the “classical” formulation of the question: “should Russia go through all phases of European development or will it have to take a different path towards socialism.

These are the first milestones on the path of philosophical and historical substantiation of the main idea of “Russian socialism” - the idea of the possibility of a non-capitalist path of development of Russia. But this is just the beginning of such a justification, just a few thoughts and considerations. Herzen associates the possibility for Russia to bypass certain phases of European development with the fact that these phases can, should and actually be experienced by Russia, but in a special manner, Russia went through these phases, so to speak, ideally, in the consciousness of its advanced ideas. “Russia,” he writes, “made its revolution in the European school. The nobility together with the government form a European state within a Slavic state. We have gone through all phases of liberalism, from the English constitutional worship of '93. The people do not need to begin again this sorrowful work already done by Russia.”

Firstly, an attempt to philosophically explain the possibility for Russia to bypass some stages of the European history of development, based on the relationship between the personal and the historical.

Secondly, the approach to the idea that mastering the socialist ideas of Western Europe is a necessary condition for Russia to come to socialism without repeating the history of the path of Western European countries, and the idea of the need to establish a connection between the conclusions of Western science, assimilated by the advanced nobility and the people aspirations. He believed that some features of anarchism were preserved in Russia. Herzen highly appreciated the role of the Russian non-bureaucratic nobility. He wrote that “these people are the most independent people in Europe, they have reached socialist ideas in politics, reason in science, denial and skepticism in philosophy.”

In “Letters” Herzen draws the prospects for a future revolution. “The state and the individual, power and freedom, communism and egoism - these are the pillars of Hercules of the great revolutionary epic. Europe offers flawed and wild solutions. The revolution will provide a synthesis of these solutions. Socialist formulas will remain vague until life realizes them. At that time, he imagined the future system - socialism - as a society without government.

Herzen emphasizes that without the assistance of Western socialist ideas, the Slavic peoples will never gather their strength and move from communism to conscious socialism.

He writes: “The artel and the rural community, the division of profits and the division of fields, the secular gathering and the union of villages into volosts governing themselves - all these are the cornerstones on which the temple of our future free communal life is created. But these cornerstones are still stones, and without Western thought our future cathedral will remain with the same foundation.”

In 1855, the almanac “Polar Star” began to be published. The highest achievement of Herzen’s revolutionary educational activities was the publication, together with N. P. Ogarev, of the newspaper “Bell” (1857-1867). Revolutionary agitation for the abolition of serfdom begins to come to the fore in Herzen's activities.

“The peculiarity, the originality of Russia,” Herzen believes, is the rural community, which has existed for centuries.” He considered a peasant revolution in Russia quite possible and imagined it in the form of a new Pugachevism. But he definitely stated that he preferred the peaceful path of eliminating serfdom, that the experience of the revolution of 1848 inspired him with “disgust from bloody coups.” Herzen turns his attention to the Russian educated nobility. He believed that it was in the layer of a certain nobility that the germ and mental centers of the coming revolution were hidden.

In 1857, in the theory of “Russian socialism,” the idea of the “right” of peasants to land was finally formed. The liberation of the peasants in Russia can and should be carried out as liberation with land; Herzen says that the peasant only wants to receive worldly land, which he acquired with the right to work. “The Russian peasant does not believe that worldly land can belong to something other than the world; he rather believes that he himself belongs to the earth, rather than that the earth can be taken away from the world. This is extremely important."

Thus, by the time of the peasant reform of 1861, the main ideas of Russian socialism had been developed and repeated many times. The main components of the theory at the end of the 50s were: recognition of Russia’s special path to socialism compared to Western European countries; the belief that Russia is more capable of social revolution than these countries; assessment of the rural community as the embryo of a socialist organization and indications of those qualities that make it possible to see such an embryo in it; the assertion that the liberation of the peasants with the land should be the beginning, the first step of the socialist revolution.

The pre-reform period was characterized by Herzen's greater concentration on the socio-economic aspect of the theory.

After the reform of 1861, Herzen’s hopes for the destruction of serfdom, which would open a direct path for the country’s development towards socialism, did not come true. The “liberation” turned out to be half-hearted, the discontent of the peasants was quite obvious. In the journalism of the 60s, revolutionary-democratic tendencies and a premonition of a peasant revolution are becoming more and more evident. One of the significant shifts in Herzen’s thoughts after the reform of 1861 was the abandonment of hopes for the middle nobility as the ideological and organizational ferment of Russia’s movement towards “Russian socialism.” Proving that after the reform Russia did not lose the opportunity to transition to socialism, bypassing capitalism, constitutes an important aspect of the development of the theory of “Russian socialism” in the 60s. The post-reform decade introduces additions to the theory. Two of Herzen’s works of this period are interesting - “Letters to a Traveler” (mid 1865) and the article “Towards the End of the Year”. Herzen outlines two paths of movement towards socialism - “for the West, socialism is the setting sun, for the Russian people it is the rising sun.”

The final study at the end of the 60s, which became a necessity for the development of the theory, encountered serious difficulties in the matter of economic, social and political life in Russia. It became increasingly difficult to study this life abroad, especially since Kolokol’s living ties with Russia were weakening every day.

The last time Herzen addresses the issue of socialism and the socialist revolution is in his letters “To an Old Comrade.” The question of the means of social transformation constitutes the main theme of the “letters.” There is only one serious question of our time, Herzen argued, - this is the question of socialism.

And yet Herzen’s “Russian socialism” was a utopia, a mistake. He did not understand that it was impossible to jump directly from relations that were primitive in form, but feudal in essence, to socialism. It is impossible because socialism for its construction requires significant material and technical development, which would give society the opportunity to solve social problems.

“Russian socialism” was based on the idea of an “original” path of development for Russia, which, bypassing capitalism, would come through the peasant community to socialism. The objective conditions for the emergence of the idea of Russian socialism in Russia were the weak development of capitalism, the absence of a proletariat and the presence of a rural land community. Herzen’s desire to avoid the “ulcers of capitalism” that he saw in Western European countries was also important. “To preserve the community and liberate the individual, to extend rural and volost self-government to cities, to the state as a whole, while maintaining national unity, to develop private rights and preserve the indivisibility of the land - this is the main question of the revolution,” Herzen wrote.

Religions of India
One of the most majestic and original cultures that existed on our planet is the Indo-Buddhist philosophy, which was formed mainly in India. The achievements of the ancient Indians in various fields -...

Land and tax redistribution in the monastery village.
According to V.A. Aleksandrov, supported by N.A. Gorskaya, the redistribution type of community in Russia began to take shape at the turn of the 15th-16th centuries. L.V.Milov considers one of the most essential prerequisites for land redistribution to be the absence of allods in Russia - peasants...

Milestones of the Second World War
The largest in history, the Second World War was prepared by the forces of international reaction and unleashed by the main aggressive states - Nazi Germany, fascist Italy and militaristic Japan. It began on September 1, 1939...

“The awareness of the unreasonableness and cruelty of the autocratic political regime developed in Herzen an insurmountable hatred of all slavery and arbitrariness” 7.

Essentially, this hope was not based on any factual data; his references to the special qualities of the Russian national character were not serious.

Herzen found the state most capable of social transformation in his homeland. “Faith in Russia saved me on the brink of moral death...” - said Herzen 8. The Russians are significantly behind Europe; historical events swept over these people. But this is his happiness. “The Russian people have preserved their mighty soul, their great national character” 9. He fixed his gaze on the Russian community. “The community saved the Russian people from Mongol barbarism and from imperial civilization, from European-style landowners and from the German bureaucracy. The community organization, although greatly shaken, resisted government intervention; she lived happily until the development of socialism in Europe” 10. In the patriarchal community, Herzen saw a means of radical social transformation, a real element of socialism. Herzen developed the theory of “communal”, “peasant”, “Russian” socialism as an integral, complete doctrine. He believed that the combination of Western European socialist ideas with the Russian communal world would ensure the victory of socialism and renew Western European civilization.

In the work “Russia”, Russia represents in modern Europe a young people, full of strength, a people who have no past, but everything is ahead. There is no reason to believe that in its further development Russia must go through all the phases through which the peoples of Western Europe went. These peoples have “developed” to certain social ideals. Russia in its everyday life is closer to these ideals than Western Europe: “...what for the West is only a hope towards which efforts are directed is for us already a real fact from which we begin” 13. Such a “real fact” corresponding to the ideal of Western Europe is the Russian rural community. This community, however, needs a certain development and change, since in its modern form it does not represent a satisfactory solution to the problem of the individual and society: the individual in it is suppressed, absorbed by society. Having preserved the land community throughout its history, the Russian people “are closer to the socialist revolution than to the political revolution” 14. What socialist did Herzen find in the community? Firstly, democracy, or “communism” (i.e. collectivism) in managing the life of a rural artel. At their meetings, “in peace,” the peasants decide the general affairs of the village, elect local judges, a headman who cannot act contrary to the will of the “peace.” This general management of everyday life is due to the fact - and this is the second point characterizing the community as the embryo of socialism - that people use the land together. They cultivate it together, share meadows, pastures, and forests. This communal land use seemed to Herzen the embryo of conscious collective ownership. Herzen also saw an element of socialism in peasant rights to land, i.e. in the right of every peasant to a plot of land, which the community must provide him with for use. He cannot and has no need to pass it on by inheritance. His son, as soon as he reaches adulthood, acquires the right, even during his father’s lifetime, to demand a land plot from the community. A peasant who leaves his community for a while does not lose his rights to the land; it can be taken away from him only in the event of expulsion - this is decided by a secular gathering. If a peasant leaves the community of his own free will, he loses the right to an allotment. He is allowed to take his movable property with him. This right to land seemed to Herzen a sufficient condition for the life of the community. It excluded, in his opinion, the emergence of a landless proletariat.

“The task of the new era into which we are entering,” Herzen wrote, “is to develop an element on the basis of the science of our communal self-government to complete freedom of the individual, bypassing those intermediate forms through which the development of the West necessarily went, wandering along unknown paths. Our new life must weave these two inheritances into one fabric in such a way that a free individual will have the earth under his feet and so that the community member will be a completely free person” 15. Thus, Herzen did not consider Russia’s path to socialism through the community as an exception to the experience of global development. He considered the possible rapid implementation of socialism in Russia, first of all, as an aid to the world revolution; after all, it is impossible without the destruction of Russian tsarism, without the emancipation of Russia. Europe is never destined to be free." 16 But Herzen notes that in Russian life there is something higher than the community, and stronger than power. He sees this “something” in the “internal” force, not fully aware of itself, which “independent of all external events and in spite of them, preserved the Russian people and supported their indestructible faith in themselves.” Now the idea of the absence of a firmly established “past” in Russia becomes one of the most important principles of “Russian socialism.”

Developing the theory of “Russian socialism,” Herzen thought that he had finally managed to actually substantiate socialism. Having seen in the community the material embryo of a society of social equality, Herzen believed that he had overcome the utopianism of the former socialists, that from now on not only the justice and reasonableness of socialism was proven, but also the possibility and reality of its actual implementation. Herzen writes: “...I see no reason why Russia must necessarily undergo all phases of European development, nor do I see why the civilization of the future must invariably submit to the same conditions of existence as the civilization of the past” 17 .

One of the major milestones of this work is marked by the book “On the Development of Revolutionary Ideas in Russia. Herzen begins the first chapter “Russia and Europe” with a mention of the article “Russia” and says: “... our views have not changed since that time” 18. The main thing in this work by Herzen from the point of view of the development of the ideas of “Russian socialism” is that here for the first time, and in essence the only time, the author tries to substantiate his idea in such a systematic and consistent manner with the course of historical development of Russia. In an attempt to provide a historical substantiation of the ideas of “Russian socialism,” Herzen argues that Russia has “two reasons for living: the socialist element and youth.” In the book he tried to prove this thesis about the organic, durable, non-crushing nature of the “socialist element” of Russian life - the rural community. Herzen believed that the history of Russia up to the present time is only “the history of the embryonic development of the Slavic state,” “the path to an unknown future that is beginning to dawn on us” 19. This thesis occupied an important place in the theory of “Russian socialism”. But in the internal history of the country, in the development of social forms and political institutions, the strengths and capabilities of the Russian people were not revealed with sufficient completeness. This shows the entire course of Russian history. Autocracy and serfdom are two main factors of Russian life, which removed the people from active participation in the social and political life of the country and fettered their forces. The idea of the “youth” of the Russian people, which Herzen tried to prove here, was essentially a form in which the consciousness of the contradiction between the fact of the economic and political backwardness of the country and the potential possibilities of broad, progressive development was expressed.

Thanks to the rural community, Russia turned out to be more capable of socialist transformation than the West.

Herzen simply states here the fact that the community survived in the course of Russian history, and concludes that the existence of the community ensures the country's transition to a new, social social order. Two ideas developed in this book were of significant importance for the theory of “Russian socialism”. This is, firstly, the assertion that the antagonistic socialist structure characteristic of modern Russia was not originally characteristic of the country. It is the result of the enslavement of the peasants and arose, in essence, as a result of the legalization of serfdom under Peter I. By the fact that Peter I finally tore the nobility away from the people and granted them terrible power over the peasants, he instilled in the people the deepest antagonism that had not existed before, and if he was, but only to a weak degree. Later, in the book “Baptized Property,” Herzen wrote: “The unity of Russian life was torn apart by Peter’s coup. The two Russias became hostile against each other from the beginning of the eighteenth century. On the one hand there was governmental, imperial Russia, rich in money, armed not only with bayonets, but with all the administrative and police tricks taken from Germany; on the other hand, Rus' is “the black people, poor, arable, communal, democratic, unarmed, taken by surprise, defeated, in fact, without a fight 20.” This view of the origin of socialist transformations in Russia led to an unequal semantic conclusion. Its consequence was a revolutionary demand to eliminate the existing “bifurcation” of Russia.

The development of the ideas of “Russian socialism” in articles on Russian serfdom consisted, first of all, in upholding the idea of the Russian rural community as a “socialist element”, contrary to the opinion about the “patriarchal” nature of the community, at the same time it meant asserting the incompatibility of the free development of the community with serfdom 22 "

Educated Russia must now dissolve among the people. Russian progressive thought reached socialism in politics, materialism and the denial of all religion in philosophy. Socialism, Herzen argues, “has again brought the revolutionary party to the people.” In Herzen’s reasoning presented in this article, there are the beginnings of two very significant ideas for “Russian socialism” and its further development. Firstly, an attempt to philosophically explain the possibility for Russia to bypass some stages of the European history of development, based on the relationship between the personal and the historical. Secondly, the approach to the idea that mastering the socialist ideas of Western Europe is a necessary condition for Russia to come to socialism without repeating the history of the path of Western European countries, and the idea of the need to establish a connection between the conclusions of Western science, assimilated by the advanced nobility and the people aspirations. He believed that some features of anarchism were preserved in Russia. Herzen highly appreciated the role of the Russian non-bureaucratic nobility. He wrote that “these people are the most independent people in Europe, they have reached socialist ideas in politics, reason in science, denial and skepticism in philosophy 27.”

Herzen emphasizes that without the assistance of Western socialist ideas, the Slavic peoples will never gather their strength and move from communism to conscious socialism.

In 1855, the almanac “Polar Star” began to be published. The highest achievement of Herzen’s revolutionary educational activities was the publication together with N.P. Ogarev of the newspaper "Bell" (1857-1867). Revolutionary agitation for the abolition of serfdom begins to come to the fore in Herzen's activities.

The pre-reform period was characterized by Herzen's greater concentration on the socio-economic aspect of the theory.