Russian literary critic and publicist, brother of Alexandra Annenskaya. Ideologist of the Jacobin trend in populism.
Comes from a poor landowner family. He entered the law faculty of St. Petersburg University, but was soon involved in one of the political cases (the so-called “Ballod case”; for participation in student riots) and served several months in the Peter and Paul Fortress, first in the form of the arrest of the defendant, then by the verdict of the Senate. When the university was reopened, Tkachev, without enrolling as a student, passed the exam for an academic degree (1868).
Tkachev began writing very early. His first article (“On the trial for crimes against the laws of the press”) was published in No. 6 of the magazine “Time” for 1862. Following this, several more articles by Tkachev on various issues related to judicial reform were published in “Time” and “Epoch” in 1862-64. In 1863 and 1864, Tkachev also wrote in P. D. Boborykin’s “Library for Reading”; Tkachev’s first “statistical studies” were placed here (crime and punishment, poverty and charity). At the end of 1865, Tkachev became friends with G.E. Blagosvetlov and began writing in the Russian Word, and then in the Delo that replaced it. For revolutionary propaganda among students, he was imprisoned and was constantly under police surveillance. During the student unrest in St. Petersburg in 1868-69, together with S. G. Nechaev, he led the radical minority. In the spring of 1869, he was arrested again and in July 1871 he was sentenced by the St. Petersburg Judicial Chamber to 1 year and 4 months in prison. After serving his sentence, Tkachev was exiled to his homeland, Velikiye Luki, from where he soon emigrated abroad.
Life in exile
Tkachev's journal activities, interrupted by his arrest, resumed in 1872. He again wrote in Delo, but not under his own name, but under different pseudonyms (P. Nikitin, P. N. Nionov, P. N. Postny, P. Gr-li, P. Grachioli, Still the same). In emigration, he collaborated with the magazine “Forward!”, joined a group of Polish-Russian emigrants, after a break with P. L. Lavrov, he began publishing the magazine “Nabat” (1875-81), together with K. M. Tursky was one of the creators of “ Society for People's Liberation" (1877), whose activities in Russia were insignificant. In the mid-1870s. became close to the French Blanquists, collaborated on their newspaper “Ni dieu, ni maitre” (“Neither God, nor Master”). Tkachev developed his political views in several brochures published by him abroad, and in the magazine “Nabat”, published under his editorship in Geneva in 1875-76. Tkachev sharply diverged from the then dominant trends in emigrant literature, the main exponents of which were P. L. Lavrov and M. A. Bakunin. He was a representative of the so-called “Jacobin” tendencies, opposite to both Bakunin’s anarchism and the direction of Lavrov’s “Forward!” In the last years of his life, Tkachev wrote little. At the end of 1882, he became seriously ill and spent the rest of his life in a mental hospital. He died in 1886 in Paris, 41 years old.
Literary activity
Tkachev was a very prominent figure in the group of writers on the extreme left wing of Russian journalism. In literature, he followed the ideas of the “sixties” and remained faithful to them until the end of his life. He differed from his other comrades in the “Russian Word” and “Delo” in that he was never interested in natural science; his thought always revolved in the sphere of social issues. He wrote extensively on population statistics and economic statistics. The digital material he had was very poor, but Tkachev knew how to use it. Back in the 1870s, he noticed the relationship between the growth of the peasant population and the size of the land allotment, which was subsequently firmly substantiated by P. P. Semenov-Tyan-Shansky (in his introduction to “Statistics of Land Ownership in Russia”). The majority of Tkachev's articles relate to the field of literary criticism; in addition, for several years he led the “New Books” department in “Delo” (and previously the “Bibliographic List” in “Russian Word”). Tkachev's critical and bibliographic articles are purely journalistic in nature; it is a passionate preaching of well-known social ideals, a call to work for the implementation of these ideals. In his sociological views, Tkachev was an extreme and consistent “economic materialist.” Almost for the first time in Russian journalism, the name of Karl Marx appears in his articles. Back in 1865, in “Russian Word” (“Bibliographic Sheet”, No. 12), Tkachev wrote: “All legal and political phenomena are represented as nothing more than direct legal consequences of the phenomena of economic life; this legal and political life is, so to speak, a mirror in which the economic life of the people is reflected... Back in 1859, the famous German exile Karl Marx formulated this view in the most precise and definite way.” To practical activity, in the name of the ideal of “social equality” [“Currently, all people have equal rights, but not everyone is equal, that is, not everyone is gifted with the same opportunity to bring their interests into balance - hence the struggle and anarchy... Put everyone in the same conditions in relation to to development and material security, and you will give everyone real, actual equality, and not the imaginary, fictitious one which was invented by scholastic lawyers with the deliberate goal of fooling the ignorant and deceiving simpletons" (Russian Word. - 1865. - No. XI, II department - 36- 37 p.).], Tkachev called “people of the future.” He was not an economic fatalist. Achieving a social ideal, or at least a radical change for the better in the economic system of society, should have been, in his views, the task of conscious social activity. “People of the future” in Tkachev’s constructions occupied the same place as “thinking realists” in D.I. Pisarev. Before the idea of the common good, which should serve as a guiding principle for the behavior of people of the future, all the provisions of abstract morality and justice, all the requirements of the moral code adopted by the bourgeois crowd recede into the background. “Moral rules are established for the benefit of the community, and therefore observance of them is obligatory for everyone. But a moral rule, like everything in life, is relative in nature, and its importance is determined by the importance of the interest for which it was created... Not all moral rules are equal to each other,” and, moreover, “not only different rules can be different in their importance, but even the importance of one and the same rule, in different cases of its application, can vary indefinitely.” When confronted with moral rules of unequal importance and social utility, one should not hesitate to give preference to the more important over the less important. This choice should be given to everyone; every person must be recognized “the right to treat the prescriptions of the moral law, in each particular case of its application, not dogmatically but critically”; otherwise, “our morality will not differ in any way from the morality of the Pharisees, who rebelled against the Teacher because on the Sabbath day he was engaged in healing the sick and teaching the people” (People of the Future and Heroes of the Philistinism // Business. - 1868. - No. 3.)
Views of P. N. Tkachev
Tkachev's views were formed under the influence of the democratic and socialist ideology of the 50-60s of the 19th century. Tkachev rejected the idea of “originality” of the Russian social system and argued that the post-reform development of the country was moving towards capitalism. He believed that the victory of capitalism could be prevented only by replacing the bourgeois economic principle with a socialist one. Like all populists, Tkachev pinned his hope for the socialist future of Russia on the peasantry, communist “by instinct, by tradition,” imbued with “the principles of communal ownership.” But, unlike other populists, Tkachev believed that the peasantry, due to its passivity and darkness, was unable to independently carry out a social revolution, and the community could become a “cell of socialism” only after the existing state and social system was destroyed. In contrast to the apoliticalism that dominated the revolutionary movement, Tkachev developed the idea of political revolution as the first step towards a social revolution. Following P. G. Zaichnevsky, he believed that the creation of a secret, centralized and conspiratorial revolutionary organization was the most important guarantee of the success of the political revolution. The revolution, according to Tkachev, boiled down to the seizure of power and the establishment of a dictatorship of a “revolutionary minority”, opening the way for “revolutionary organizing activity”, which, unlike “revolutionary destructive activity”, is carried out exclusively by persuasion. The preaching of political struggle, the demand for the organization of revolutionary forces, and the recognition of the need for a revolutionary dictatorship distinguished Tkachev’s concept from the ideas of M. A. Bakunin and P. L. Lavrov.
Tkachev called his philosophical views “realism”, meaning by this “... a strictly real, rationally scientific, and therefore highly human worldview” (Selected works on socio-political topics. T. 4. - M., 1933. - P. 27). Speaking as an opponent of idealism, Tkachev identified it in epistemological terms with “metaphysics”, and in social terms with an ideological apology for the existing system. Tkachev made the value of any theory dependent on its relationship to social issues. Under the influence of the works of N. G. Chernyshevsky and partly K. Marx, Tkachev assimilated certain elements of the materialist understanding of history, recognized the “economic factor” as the most important lever of social development and viewed the historical process from the point of view of the struggle between the economic interests of individual classes. Guided by this principle, Tkachev criticized the subjective method in the sociology of P. L. Lavrov and N. K. Mikhailovsky, their theories of social progress. However, on the question of the role of the individual in history, Tkachev tended to be subjectivist. A qualitative feature of historical reality, according to Tkachev, is that it does not exist outside and apart from the activities of people. The individual appears in history as an active creative force, and since the limits of the possible in history are mobile, then individuals, the “active minority,” can and should bring “... into the process of development of social life a lot of things that are not only not determined, but sometimes even decisively contradict as previous historical prerequisites, as well as the given conditions of society...” (Selected works on socio-political topics. T. 3. - M., 1933. - P. 193). Guided by this position, Tkachev created his own scheme of the historical process, according to which the source of progress is the will of the “active minority.” This concept became the philosophical basis for Tkachev’s theory of revolution.
In the field of literary criticism, Tkachev was a follower of N. G. Chernyshevsky, N. A. Dobrolyubov and D. I. Pisarev. Continuing the development of the theory of “real criticism,” Tkachev demanded that a work of art be highly ideological and socially significant. Tkachev often ignored the aesthetic merits of a work of art, erroneously assessed a number of modern literary works, accused I. S. Turgenev of distorting the picture of people’s life, rejected the satire of M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, and called L. N. Tolstoy a “salon writer.”
The populist revolutionaries of the late 1860s and early 1870s, who rejected political revolution in the name of social revolution, rejected Tkachev’s doctrine. Only at the end of the 1870s did the logic of the historical process lead the Narodnaya Volya to a direct political action against the autocracy.
Pyotr Nikitich Tkachev (1844-1885) - famous Russian revolutionary, ideologist of populism. The article examines in detail his biography, views and ideas.
Childhood and youth
Pyotr Nikitich Tkachev was born on June 29, 1844 in the Pskov province (the village of Sivtsovo). His parents were small landed nobles. At first, Pyotr Nikitich attended the 2nd St. Petersburg Gymnasium. Then, from the fifth grade of this gymnasium in 1861, he entered St. Petersburg University, the Faculty of Law. However, Peter Tkachev did not have to study. The fact is that at that time student unrest began, as a result of which the university was closed. Among other active participants in these unrest, Tkachev was imprisoned first in the Peter and Paul Fortress (in October), and then in the Kronstadt Fortress, from which he left in December.
Defense of the dissertation, peculiarity of revolutionary views
The Tsar ordered to leave Pyotr Nikitich in the capital, entrusting him to his mother. Tkachev did not have the opportunity to continue his studies at the university. However, seven years later he finally passed the exams as an external student, presented his dissertation and became a candidate of law. Somewhat later, criticizing Lavrov for being too disconnected from the revolutionary movement, Pyotr Nikitich wrote about himself that since the gymnasium he had not known any other society except those young men who were fond of student gatherings, organized reading rooms and Sunday schools, started communes and artels, etc. He was always not only with them, but also among them, even when he was in the Peter and Paul Fortress. Pyotr Nikitich's focus on immediately solving certain problems of the revolutionary movement formed the characteristic features of his socialist concept.
Participation in revolutionary associations
Tkachev began reading socialist literature while still studying at the gymnasium. He became acquainted with the publications of Ogarev and Herzen, with articles by Dobrolyubov and Chernyshevsky. Already in the early poems dating back to 1860-62. (some of them were on the lists), Tkachev preached a peasant revolution. He finally took the revolutionary path in 1861. From that time on, Tkachev actively participated in the student movement, as a result of which he was subjected to arrests, searches, and interrogations many times. Pyotr Nikitich was constantly under police surveillance. He served prison sentences almost every year.
In 1862, his affiliation with L. Olshevsky’s circle was revealed. This circle prepared several proclamations for publication, which contained a call to overthrow the tsar. In 1865 and 1866, Pyotr Nikitich Tkachev was close to the organization of I. A. Khudyakov and N. A. Ishutin, and in 1867 and 1868 - to the Rublevsky Society, whose members carried out propaganda under the guise of traveling teachers. It is also known that Pyotr Tkachev in 1868 joined the Smorgon commune, which is the predecessor of the organization created by S. G. Nechaev. Then, in 1868-1869, Pyotr Nikitich, together with Nechaev, was a member of the steering committee of the St. Petersburg student movement.
Beginning of literary activity
In June 1862, the literary activity of Pyotr Nikitich began. His literary talent emerged in the 60s. As one of the theorists of revolutionary populism, a brilliant critic and publicist, Tkachev collaborated with several progressive magazines. It should be noted that already in his first articles, devoted to criticism of the judicial reform planned by the government, a revolutionary-democratic, oppositional mood is noticeable. They were published in the magazines "Epoch" and "Time" by the Dostoevsky brothers, as well as in the "Library for Reading".
Introduction to the works of Marx
In a number of articles written in the period from 1862 to 1864, Pyotr Nikitich put forward the idea of changing existing social relations in Russia on a socialist basis by establishing a network of educational land-industrial associations, primarily on uninhabited lands. Around this time, Pyotr Nikitich Tkachev became acquainted with some of the works of Karl Marx.
His biography in December 1865 is marked by the fact that in the “Russian Word” he, for the first time in the legal press of our country, set out the main thesis of K. Marx related to the materialist understanding of history, which he presented in the preface to “On Criticism” It should be noted that to this At the time, Tkachev was already a regular contributor to two democratic magazines ("Delo" and "Russian Word"). He actually replaced Pisarev, who was placed in the Peter and Paul Fortress. simplified.
Design of Tkachev's concept
In 1868, P. N. Tkachev published the charter of the First International in translation (in the appendix to Becher’s book), as well as the charter of Proudhon’s People’s Bank. By the end of the 1860s, the views of Pyotr Nikitich had developed into a certain concept. He called for the country. This concept was expressed in the “Program of Revolutionary Actions” that emerged from the circle of Tkachev and Nechaev.
Peter-Pavel's Fortress
It must be said that much of what P. N. Tkachev wrote was either prohibited, or did not pass under censorship conditions, or was taken away during numerous arrests. When, during the next student unrest (in March 1869), Tkachev was arrested again, 3 literary charges were immediately brought against him. The first of them is for the creation and publication of the appeal “To Society!”, in which the demands of students were presented; the second - for the publication of a collection called "Ray", published instead of the banned "Russian Word"; third - for the fact that he published the book "The Work Question" by E. Becher. This time, the Peter and Paul Fortress became a place of imprisonment for Pyotr Nikitich for almost four years. At the beginning of 1873, Tkachev was sent into exile to Velikiye Luki, his homeland. From there he fled abroad with the help of M.V. Kupriyanov, also a revolutionary.
Life abroad, controversy with Engels and Lavrov
Journal activity, interrupted by the arrest, resumed in 1872. Tkachev again began publishing his articles in Delo. However, he signed them not with his last name, but with different pseudonyms (Still the same, P. Grachioli, P. Gr-li, P. N. Postny, P. N. Nionov, P. Nikitin).
In London and Geneva, Pyotr Nikitich at one time collaborated with P. L. Lavrov (his portrait is presented above) in preparation for the publication of the magazine “Forward!” However, his very first steps taken in exile were marked by serious polemics with F. Engels and Lavrov. In 1874, Tkachev’s brochures “Tasks of Revolutionary Propaganda…” and “Open Letter to Friedrich Engels” were published in Zurich and London. This controversy immediately put Pyotr Nikitich in an isolated position abroad.
The emigrant literature of F. Engels, Lavrov and others took a slightly different position than Pyotr Nikitich. The essence of the disagreement between them was that Tkachev considered political struggle as an integral prerequisite for a future revolution. However, he underestimated the role of the masses in it, which many Russian emigrants could not agree with. In his opinion, the revolutionary minority must win power, found a new state, and carry out revolutionary changes that express the interests of the people. The latter can only take advantage of the results. Pyotr Tkachev was mistaken in his opinion that autocracy has no social basis in Russia, that it does not represent the interests of one class or another. in turn, in the articles he wrote, he responded by criticizing Tkachev’s views, which he considered petty-bourgeois.
Publication of the magazine "Nabat"
Pyotr Nikitich, having left “Forward!”, found supporters among the “Cercle Slave” circle (translated as “Slavic circle”), which united Russian-Polish emigrants. With their help, Tkachev began publishing the Nabat magazine in Geneva in 1875. In this magazine he took the position of editor. This publication became the organ of the Jacobin trend, close to Blanquism, in revolutionary populism. During this period, Tkachev openly expressed his socialist views, discussing issues of the theoretical justification of socialism, tactics and strategy of the revolutionary struggle. In the magazine "Nabat" Pyotr Nikitich conducted a polemic with P.L. Lavrov and His ideas, which at first did not have much influence and often caused irritation, began to find supporters by the end of the 1870s. This happened as the Russian revolutionaries made a turn towards political and social methods and the demands of the revolutionary struggle.
"People's Liberation Society"
In 1877, Pyotr Nikitich, together with his adherents, managed to organize the Society for People's Liberation. This strictly conspiratorial association was created with the help of Blanquist communards from France (F. Cournet, E. Grange, E. Vaillant, etc.). The society relied in its activities on some Russian circles (in particular, I. M. Kovalsky in Odessa and Zaichnevsky in Orel). Tkachev in 1880 collaborated in the newspaper “Neither God, nor Master” by O. Blanqui.
Nevertheless, the prejudice against Pyotr Nikitich remained very strong. So much so that “Narodnaya Volya” (according to V.I. Lenin, its activities were prepared by Tkachev’s ideology) rejected the alliance with “Alarm”, which was previously proposed. "Alarm" ceased publication after its brief release in 1881 as a newspaper.
Publishing under various pseudonyms
Tkachev, living abroad, continued to publish in the legal Russian press under various pseudonyms, which (Still the same, P. Gracioli, etc.) we have already listed. As one of the main collaborators of Delo, Pyotr Nikitich published many articles on philosophy, law, history, pedagogy, economics, etc. However, after the editor of this magazine, G. E. Blagosvetlov, died, collaboration became less regular. Tkachev's articles appeared less and less often. It seemed that the literary and revolutionary activity of Pyotr Nikitich was fading, but in reality this was not the case.
By now, some new facts have become known regarding the last years of Tkachev’s life in exile. They indicate that this Russian literary critic and revolutionary continued to actively create. Recently we managed to discover the socialist newspaper "Nabat" ("Le Tocsin"), which was published in the south of France (in Narbonne) in 1882. Leading articles for it were written by Tkachev, who hid his name under the pseudonym "Gracchus". Most likely, these appearances in the press can be considered the last.
Since November 1882, Tkachev's illness progressed, as a result of which he ended up in the hospital. Pyotr Nikitich died in Paris on December 23, 1885. His selected works will forever go down in the history of the revolution.
Philosophical views of Tkachev
At first glance, in such a rich and varied activity of the tribune-publicist-politician, there is no place left for serious philosophy, or it is assigned a subordinate, purely random role. Indeed, from the formal side, Pyotr Nikitich Tkachev himself, apparently, gives us a reason for this assumption. After all, he was a fierce critic of all philosophical systems.
However, already in one of his first articles (in Legal Metaphysics, published in 1863), Tkachev formulated his program for the reform of philosophy. He says that it is necessary to build a true, fruitful, living philosophy, which is alien to any kind of metaphysics. It must bind together the parts of social science that have been forcibly torn apart. This philosophy will be a social, social science. It must benefit society.
Tkachev, as a publicist, often returns to the problem of the benefits of philosophy. In his opinion, it should become the basis for transforming the world, an instrument of science, the core of a correct worldview. As a politician, Pyotr Nikitich Tkachev especially developed the problems of revolution, sociology, and a fair and reasonable social order. He called his philosophical position "realism" (or rationalism).
Such a curious person was Pyotr Nikitich Tkachev. Interesting facts about him are almost all connected with the revolution, to which he gave his whole life.
Revolutionary of the 19th century - P.N. Tkachev.
The surname of this man gave the name to a whole movement in the revolutionary movement of Russia in the 19th century.
However, even in the twentieth century, “tkachevism” continues to mean conspiratorial tactics as a means to accomplish a revolution, as well as the construction of a new society under the leadership of a revolutionary organization.
This is not news...
But the fact that some theorists, both past and present, consider Lenin and the Bolsheviks, in fact, followers of Tkachev - this already deserves to study the ideological heritage of P.N. Tkachev himself.
“Tkachev considered political struggle a necessary prerequisite for revolution, but underestimated the decisive role of the masses. According to Tkachev, the revolutionary minority must seize political power, create a new state and carry out revolutionary changes in the interests of the people, who can only take advantage of the finished results. . "
This is exactly how Soviet historians characterized Tkachev’s views. F. Engels also criticized Tkachev’s petty-bourgeois views in his articles “Emigrant Literature.”
But in what way did Lenin and the Bolsheviks become “continuators” of the Tkachev doctrine?
Basically, as their critics note, the Bolshevik Party was originally built as an organization of “professional revolutionaries.” After the October Revolution, it was the Bolshevik Party that concentrated political (and therefore economic) power in its hands, which they used to “carry out revolutionary changes in the interests of the people, who can only take advantage of the ready-made results...”
This is approximately how those who identify Tkachev’s theory with Bolshevik practice argue.
But are they right?
We leave it to the reader to draw his own conclusion.
To this end, the editors of the MRP website begin publishing material about Tkachev and his revolutionary theory.
Petr Nikitich TKACHEV
Philosophers, theorists and practical workers should be truly connected with each other by close, inextricable ties. As long as their antagonism continues, humanity cannot move forward.
P. N. TKACHEV
The immediate goal of the revolution should be to seize political power and create a revolutionary state. But the seizure of power, being a necessary condition for revolution, is not yet a revolution. This is just her foreplay. The revolution is carried out by the revolutionary state.
P. N. TKACHEV
Pyotr Nikitich Tkachev, the ideologist of Russian revolutionary populism, was born on June 29 (July 11), 1844 in the village of Sivtsovo, Velikolutsk district, Pskov province, into a family of small landed nobles... He was brought up in the 2nd St. Petersburg Gymnasium, from the 5th grade of which he entered in 1861 . to the Faculty of Law of St. Petersburg University. However, he did not have to study: student unrest began, the university was closed, and Tkachev, among the active participants in the unrest, was imprisoned in October, first in the Peter and Paul Fortress, and then in the Kronstadt Fortress, from which he was released in December and, by order of the Tsar, was left in the capital on bail mother. Unable to continue his studies at the university, seven years later he nevertheless passed the exams for his full course as an external student, submitted a dissertation and received a candidate of law degree. Later, criticizing Lavrov for being out of touch with the practice of the revolutionary movement, Tkachev wrote about himself: “From the gymnasium bench, I did not know any other society except the society of young men, now carried away by student gatherings, now mysteriously conspiring, now organizing Sunday schools and reading rooms, now starting artels and communes, then again grasping at public education, at the idea of getting closer to the people and again and again conspiring; I was always with them and among them - always when the thick walls of the casemate of the Peter and Paul Fortress did not separate me from them” (2. T. 2. P. 10). This focus on immediate practical solutions to the problems of the revolutionary movement determined the characteristic features of Tkachev’s socialist concept.
Even in his high school years, Tkachev became acquainted with socialist literature and, above all, with the publications of Herzen and Ogarev, with articles by Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov. Already in his youthful poems of 1860-62, some of which (“December 14, 1861 in Memory of M. L. Mikhailov” and others) were in lists, he preaches the idea of a peasant revolution. Since 1861, having embarked on the revolutionary path, Tkachev took an active part in the student movement and in the underground activities of the 60s, as a result of which he was repeatedly subjected to searches, arrests, interrogations, was constantly under police surveillance, and served prison sentences almost every year. In 1862, his involvement in L. Olshevsky’s circle was discovered, which was preparing to issue several proclamations calling for the overthrow of tsarism; he was close to the organization of N.A. Ishutin - I.A. Khudyakov, in 1867-68 - to the “Ruble Society”, which had the goal of propaganda among the people under the guise of traveling teachers, in 1868 - to the “Smorgon” commune - predecessor of the organization of S. G. Nechaev, in 1868-69. He was a member, together with Nechaev, of the steering committee of the student movement in St. Petersburg.
Tkachev's literary activity began in June 1862, and in the 60s his literary talent was revealed. As one of the ideologists of revolutionary populism, a brilliant publicist and literary critic, he collaborated in a number of progressive magazines. Already his first articles (in the magazines “Time” and “Epoch” by the brothers F. M. and M. M. Dostoevsky, in “Library for Reading” by P. D. Boborykin), devoted to criticism of the proposed judicial reform of the government, were oppositional, revolutionary -democratic character. In 1862-64. in a number of articles, Tkachev puts forward the idea of changing social relations in Russia on a socialist basis through the establishment of a network of land-industrial educational associations (especially in uninhabited lands). Around this time, he became acquainted with some of the works of K. Marx.
In December 1865, in “Russian Word” (at this time he was already a permanent contributor to the democratic magazines “Russian Word” and “Delo” and actually took the place of Pisarev, imprisoned in the Peter and Paul Fortress), Tkachev for the first time in the Russian legal press (in a review of books by Yu. G. Zhukovsky) sets out the main thesis of the materialist understanding of history by K. Marx from the preface to his “On the Critique of Political Economy”, further propagating it in his simplified interpretation. In 1868, in the appendix to the book, Bechera published a translation of the charter of the First International along with the charter of Proudhon's People's Bank. By the end of the 60s, Tkachev’s views developed into the concept of a political and social revolution in Russia, which found expression in the “Program of Revolutionary Actions”, which emerged from the circle of Nechaev and Tkachev. In general, much of what Tkachev wrote was either prohibited, or could not see the light of day due to censorship conditions, or was taken away during arrests, so when in March 1869, during student unrest, Tkachev was arrested again, the investigation was carried out on three literary charges at once: for writing and publishing appeal “To Society!”, containing the demands of students, for the publication of the collection “Luch” (published to replace the banned “Russian Word”) and for the publication of E. Becher’s book “The Work Question”. This time he spent almost four years in prison in the Peter and Paul Fortress, and at the beginning of 1873 he was sent into exile to his homeland, Velikie Luki, from where at the end of 1873, with the help of the revolutionary M.V. Kupriyanov, he fled abroad.
In Geneva and London, Tkachev tried for some time to collaborate with P. L. Lavrov in the publication of the magazine “Forward!” However, Tkachev’s very first steps in emigration were marked by sharp polemics with Lavrov and F. Engels (“Tasks of revolutionary propaganda in Russia. Letter to the editor of the magazine “Forward!” and “Open Letter to Friedrich Engels”, published in the form of brochures in London and Zurich in 1874), which immediately placed him in an isolated position in exile.
„Tkachev considered political struggle a necessary prerequisite for revolution, but underestimated the decisive role of the masses. According to Tkachev, the revolutionary minority must seize political power, create a new state and carry out revolutionary changes in the interests of the people, who can only take advantage of the finished results. He mistakenly believed that the autocratic state had no social basis in Russia and did not express the interests of any class. F. Engels criticized Tkachev’s petty-bourgeois views in his articles “Emigrant Literature”, - this is how the Soviet Institute of Marxism-Leninism characterized Tkachev’s views in comments to V.I. PSS. Lenin.
After leaving “Forward!”, Tkachev found supporters among a small circle of Russian-Polish emigrants called “Cercle Slave” (“Slavic Circle”), with the help of whom at the end of 1875 he began publishing the magazine “Nabat” in Geneva, occupying a position in it editor position. “Alarm” became the organ of a new Jacobin trend in revolutionary populism, close to Blanquism. During this period, Tkachev openly expressed his socialist views, considering the problems of theoretical justification of the socialist ideal, strategy and tactics of the revolutionary struggle. On the pages of “Nabat” he conducted a polemic with M.A. Bakunin and P.L. Lavrov. Tkachev’s ideas, which at first had no influence and even caused irritation, began to find supporters by the end of the 70s, as a turn was made among Russian revolutionaries towards political and social demands and methods of revolutionary struggle. Tkachev and his followers in 1877 managed to create, with the help of the French Blanquist communards (E. Vaillant, E. Grange, F. Cournet, etc.), a strictly conspiratorial “Society for People’s Liberation”, which relied on some circles in Russia (in particular, Zaichnevsky in Orel, I.M. Kovalsky in Odessa). In 1880, Tkachev collaborated with O. Blanqui’s newspaper “Ni Dieu, ni Maitre” (“Neither God, nor Master”),
However, the prejudice against Tkachev remained so strong that Narodnaya Volya, whose activities, according to V.I. Lenin, were prepared by Tkachev’s theoretical preaching (see: Lenin V.I. Full collection cit., vol. 6, p. 173), rejected the proposed alliance with “Nabat” and the latter, after a short-term publication in 1881 in the form of a newspaper, ceased publication. P. N. Tkachev died in 1885/86 in Paris.
Ideology of P.N. Tkachev
Tkachev's theoretical ideas developed in line with the revolutionary-democratic materialist tradition. He called his system of views “critical realism.” A characteristic feature of the thinker’s attitude to philosophy was the desire to see in it a tool for realizing the practical tasks of the social movement. Philosophy, in his opinion, should not lead away, not distract from real life, but reveal the essence of the processes taking place. Hence the sharp rejection of idealistic philosophy. Thus, according to Tkachev, Hegel’s philosophy has no significance other than purely historical, setting “unsolvable problems for itself, wandering in the unknown world of “causes and essences” inaccessible to human understanding, philosophy obviously has nothing in common with positive science” (2 . T. 1. P. 112).
Positivism, which became widespread in the 60s and 70s, did not go unnoticed by Tkachev. The thinker's attitude towards this direction of philosophy was ambiguous; undoubtedly he was impressed by the reliance of positivism on science and scientific knowledge; in it he saw a philosophy opposed to objective-idealistic concepts. At the same time, compared to P.L. Lavrov, P.N. Tkachev’s perception of positivism was more critical, and as this trend developed in Russia, the thinker increasingly focused on its reactionary, idealistic nature.
Tkachev's philosophical views were objectively based on anthropological materialism, although he himself did not consider himself to be part of this movement.
Tkachev was greatly influenced by Marxism; he perceived it, like other ideologists of revolutionary populism, in the form of economic materialism, the metaphysically understood conditionality of all phenomena of social life by economic relations, by the economic factor. “Forms of community life are generally reduced to forms of economic life; it has been proven that the latter determine the former, that whatever economic relations are, such will be social, political, moral and all other relations; It has been proven that economic relations are in turn determined by the relations of labor to production. Thus, the social question with all its intricate complexity was reduced to the question of the relationship of labor to production, i.e. to the work issue” (2. T. 1. P. 303-304). However, Tkachev could not apply this principle dialectically within the framework of anthropological philosophy and metaphysical thinking. Hence the inconsistency, possible exceptions, suggesting that in certain specific historical conditions the initial ones can be psychological, moral, i.e. ideal factors of social development.
It should be noted that Tkachev more often and more persistently than other ideologists of revolutionary populism turned to the economic principle, which in a number of cases led to certain results. Based on the analysis of economic development, from a materialist position he revealed the process of transition from feudal to capitalist socio-economic relations in Europe, and correctly revealed the contradictions of capitalism. “The collective labor of many is now the main and even the only means of increasing the livelihood of a few, so it goes without saying that perhaps the most profitable my and the least profitable for yours the exploitation of this labor serves for the “few” as the most reliable and powerful weapon of mutual struggle,” the thinker concluded (3. Vol. 4. P. 295).
Social development concept.
Tkachev's theory of progress is, in essence, a theoretical justification for his socialism. The thinker developed the theory of progress as a result of an analysis of social phenomena, polemics with positivist sociology, and with Lavrov’s concept of progress.
Tkachev strove for a materialistic understanding of social development. Based on the economic principle, he criticized the idealism of O. Comte's theory of historical development. “Comte’s initial point of view leads him to the conclusion that the laws of thinking are at the same time the laws of social development” (2. Vol. 1. P. 202). Nature and society, according to Tkachev, develop within the framework of an objective, natural process. However, the laws of development have their own specific features. He criticized Spencer's organicism, believing that the identification of the laws of nature and society leads to a fatalistic understanding of social development. If the laws of nature are eternal, uniform, strictly determined, then “on the contrary, the laws that govern society do not differ in any of these properties, being always products of society itself, i.e. products of human will and human calculation” (2. T. 1. P. 183-184).
In revealing the specifics of social laws, the thinker’s desire to go beyond mechanistic determinism, reveal the specifics of social development, and substantiate the active role of man as a subject endowed with consciousness and will is obvious. Man is significant because he “is not a lizard or an ant, that he should not be a donkey, that he can always change the conditions of life around him at will, that the laws of development of civil society do not have a single feature of that immutability, eternity and immutability, which imprints the laws of nature” (2. T. 1. P. 385). The problem for Tkachev was to overcome fatalism in understanding social development, to substantiate the role of man as a subject within the framework of the natural process of social development.
Tkachev tried to solve this problem by polemicizing, on the one hand, with organicism and social Darwinism, and on the other, with Lavrov’s “subjective” sociology. Tkachev denied the possibility of applying to society the criterion for the development of the organic world proposed by organicists - the differentiation of organs. He argued that society, “having brought the specialization of labor to a certain point (during the period of manufacturing industry), then strives to generalize, uniformize specialized labor, make division between people unnecessary, superfluous” (2. T. 1.P. 390). Although Tkachev criticized organicism, he was at the same time influenced by it.
In his own way, he also related to social Darwinism. The struggle for existence in relation to society, Tkachev believed, is the struggle for possession of the means of production, for capital; it “constitutes the same outstanding and characteristic feature in the history of civil society as the struggle for existence in the history of organic nature” (2. Vol. 1. P. 432). If in nature the struggle for existence is the source of progress, then in society it does not go beyond the “legal framework”, which allows the exploitation of other people’s labor and leads to the degradation of man as a species. “In fact, among the working population, the antagonism of individuality and genesis disintegrates, as we see, into a regression of individuality, into the degeneration of the race; it leads to depletion of the body’s physical and mental strength, to poverty, illness and excessive mortality” (2. T. 1. P. 450). Consequently, in an exploitative society, the struggle for existence leads to the regression of man as a species.
In nature, according to the thinker, the struggle for existence is a regulator of the individual needs of individuals. In society, this function must be taken over by society itself, “then there will be no reason to fight, because everyone will be and - what’s most important - will be wish to have only as much as he can have, without violating anyone’s rights, without encroaching on the shares of his neighbors” (2. T. 1.S. 459). This means that progress in society, according to Tkachev, is possible only as a result of the elimination of the struggle for capital, as a result of a social revolution and the implementation of the socialist ideal.
An antagonistic society is regressive; social progress can only happen in a socialist society in which the struggle for capital disappears.
“...Imagining world history moving smoothly and neatly forward, without sometimes making giant leaps back,” wrote V.I. Lenin, “is undialectical, unscientific, theoretically incorrect” (1. Vol. 30. P. 6). Tkachev correctly stated the contradictory nature of social development, the growth of material production, and the intensification of exploitation. However, by progress he understood the gradual evolution of the individual, hence the denial of material production as a criterion of progress, the rejection of progress as a contradictory process manifested in the form of social struggle.
Tkachev identified three elements of progress - movement, a certain direction and goal. In inorganic nature, only the first two elements are present, there is no goal. But already at the level of biological development, all three elements are present, including the goal. “In other words, life is a certain movement of particles of an organism, constantly following in a certain direction in order to maintain its mobile balance, to adapt to the movements of external particles surrounding the organism” (2. Vol. 1. P. 485). To study social development it is necessary to “find a criterion for the historical, social process; we only need to know goals social forms, and not the laws of their movement” (2. T. 1.-P. 496). Tkachev believed that in social development only goals can be known, but the laws of development cannot be known, which means that the criterion of progress is identical to its goal. That is, Tkachev, taking its goal as a criterion for social progress, considered progress not as something existing, objectively necessary, but as a given, as an ideal developed by an individual.
Trying to overcome subjectivism, Tkachev argued that the goal, which is the criterion of progress, must be objective. Such an objective basis can be a person’s desire for happiness. “Everyone also agrees that the totality of all these life goals of a person can be reduced, or better said, contained in one goal - in a person’s desire for a happy life, for happiness"(2. T. 1. P. 499). In turn, the question arose: what is the objective basis of human happiness? Tkachev answered him: “Human society cannot have any other task than to contribute to the fulfillment of the life goals of the individuals who form it. The life goal of each individual is to preserve and maintain his individuality” (2. Vol. 1. P. 507). Thus, he relied on Spencer's ideas of organicism. The objective criterion of social progress is not the level of development of material production, but the naturalistically understood maintenance and preservation of the individual, the satisfaction of his needs.
From the methodological position of anthropological materialism, relying on naturalistically understood human needs, it was theoretically impossible to overcome subjectivism in understanding social development. While criticizing Lavrov's subjectivism, Tkachev remained within its framework; criticizing Spencer's organicism, Tkachev is forced to rely on his concepts. “So, the establishment of the possible complete equality of individuals (this equality should not be confused with political and legal or even economic equality - this is equality organic, physiological, conditioned by the unity of upbringing and the commonality of living conditions) and bringing the needs of everyone into complete harmony with the means to satisfy them - this is the final, the only possible goal of human society, this is the supreme criterion of historical social progress,” the thinker concluded (2. Vol. 1 . P. 508).
Based on the above, it would be wrong to make an unambiguous conclusion about Tkachev’s subjectivism, although the methodological basis for this is obvious. However, it should be noted that the tendency towards realism, towards objective analysis, towards a materialistic understanding of social development is expressed quite clearly in him. Noting the antagonism of private interests in a capitalist society as a regressive phenomenon, Tkachev also identified progressive elements. “In the economic sphere, such an element is the proletariat, in the political and legal sphere - those institutions that are based on the concept of legal and political equality of all citizens. Finally, one of these elements can be considered the desire of the masses to develop certain mental abilities in themselves - a desire that logically follows from the position in which modern industry places urban workers” (2. Vol. 1. P. 511). Here there is a clear tendency to present social development as a dialectically contradictory process - a tendency that oriented the thinker towards overcoming social utopianism.
Analyzing Tkachev’s theory of social development, we can conclude that due to the limitations of the methodological base, he was unable to overcome the subjectivism he criticized. This means that the tendency leading to voluntarism certainly existed; it cannot be denied, and it largely determined his teaching on social revolution, although B. M. Shakhmatov is certainly right that it is wrong to identify Tkachev and Blanqui (4. P. 219 -222). However, Tkachev, under the influence of Marxism, sought to reveal the objective basis of social development, to consider it as an objectively determined, natural, dialectically contradictory process, but, we repeat, he could not overcome subjectivism.
(To be continued).
The meaning of PETER NIKITICH TKACHEV in the Brief Biographical Encyclopedia
TKACHEV PETER NIKITICH
Tkachev (Petr Nikitich) - writer. Born in 1844 in the Pskov province, into a poor landowner family. He entered the Faculty of Law at St. Petersburg University, but soon, for participating in student riots, he ended up in the Kronstadt Fortress, where he spent several months. When the university was reopened, Tkachev, without enrolling as a student, passed the exam for an academic degree. Involved in one of the political cases (the so-called “Ballod case”), Tkachev served several months in the Peter and Paul Fortress, first in the form of the arrest of a defendant, then by sentence of the Senate. Tkachev began writing very early. His first article (“On the court for crimes against the laws of the press”) was published in ¦ 6 of the magazine “Time” for 1862. Following this, several more articles were published in “Time” and in “Epoch”, in 1862 - 64 Tkachev on various issues related to judicial reform. In 1863 and 1864, Tkachev also wrote in the “Library for Reading” by P.D. Boborykina; Here, by the way, Tkachev’s first “statistical studies” were placed (crime and punishment, poverty and charity). At the end of 1865, Tkachev became friends with G.E. Blagosvetlov and began to write in “Russian Word”, and then in “Delo”, which replaced it. In the spring of 1869, he was arrested again and in July 1871 he was sentenced by the St. Petersburg judicial chamber to 1 year and 4 months in prison (in the so-called “Nechaevsky case”). After serving his sentence, Tkachev was exiled to Velikiye Luki, from where he soon emigrated abroad. Tkachev's journal activity, interrupted by his arrest, resumed in 1872. He again wrote in Delo, but not under his own name, but under various pseudonyms (P. Nikitin, P. N. Nionov, P. N. Postny, P. Gr-li , P. Gracioli, Still the same). Tkachev was a very prominent figure in the group of writers on the extreme left wing of Russian journalism. He had an undoubted and extraordinary literary talent; His articles are written in a lively and sometimes fascinating manner. Clarity and strict consistency of thought, turning into a certain straightforwardness, make Tkachev’s articles especially valuable for becoming acquainted with the mental currents of that period of Russian social life, which included the heyday of his literary activity. Tkachev sometimes did not finish his conclusions only for censorship reasons. Within the framework allowed by external conditions, he dotted all the i’s, no matter how paradoxical the positions he defended sometimes seemed. Tkachev was brought up on the ideas of the “sixties” and remained faithful to them until the end of his life. He differed from his other comrades in the “Russian Word” and “Deed” in that he was never interested in natural science; his thought always revolved in the sphere of social issues. He wrote extensively on population statistics and economic statistics. The digital material he had was very poor, but Tkachev knew how to use it. Back in the 70s, he noticed the relationship between the growth of the peasant population and the size of the land allotment, which was later firmly substantiated by P.P. Semenov (in his introduction to “Statistics of Land Ownership in Russia”). The majority of Tkachev's articles relate to the field of literary criticism; in addition, for several years he led the “New Books” department in “Delo” (and earlier “Bibliographic List” in “Russian Word”). Tkachev's critical and bibliographic articles are purely journalistic in nature; it is a passionate preaching of well-known social ideals, a call to work for the implementation of these ideals. In his sociological views, Tkachev was an extreme and consistent “economic materialist.” Almost for the first time in Russian journalism, the name of Marx appears in his articles. Back in 1865, in “Russian Word” (“Bibliographical sheet”, ¦ 12) Tkachev wrote: “All legal and political phenomena are represented as nothing more than direct legal consequences of the phenomena of economic life; this legal and political life is, so to speak, a mirror , which reflects the economic life of the people... Back in 1859, the famous German exile Karl Marx formulated this view in the most precise and definite way.” To practical activity, in the name of the ideal of “social equality” *), Tkachev called “people of the future.” He was not an economic fatalist. Achieving a social ideal, or at least a radical change for the better in the economic system of society, should have been, in his views, the task of conscious social activity. “People of the future” in Tkachev’s constructions occupied the same place as “thinking realists” in Pisarev. Before the idea of the common good, which should serve as a guiding principle for the behavior of people of the future, all the provisions of abstract morality and justice, all the requirements of the moral code adopted by the bourgeois crowd recede into the background. “Moral rules were established for the benefit of society and therefore observance of them is mandatory for everyone. But a moral rule, like everything in life, is relative in nature and its importance is determined by the importance of the interest for the protection of which it was created. ... Not all moral rules are equal to each other" and, moreover, "not only different rules can be different in their importance, but even the importance of the same rule, in different cases of its application, can change indefinitely." When moral rules collide of unequal importance and social usefulness, one should not hesitate to give preference to the more important over the less important. This choice should be given to everyone; the right to treat the prescriptions of the moral law, in each particular case of its application, should be recognized, not dogmatically, but critically. ; otherwise, “our morality will not differ in any way from the morality of the Pharisees, who rebelled against the Teacher because on the Sabbath day he was engaged in healing the sick and teaching the people” (“The Case”, 1868, ¦ 3, “People of the future and heroes of the philistinism”). Tkachev developed his political views in several brochures published by him abroad, and in the magazine "Nabat", published under his editorship in Geneva, in 1875 - 76. Tkachev sharply diverged from the then dominant trends in emigrant literature, the main exponents of which were P.L. Lavrov and M.A. Bakunin. He was a representative of the so-called “Jacobin” tendencies, opposed to both Bakunin’s anarchism and Lavrovsky’s “Forward” direction. In the last years of his life, Tkachev wrote little. In 1883, he became mentally ill and died in 1885, in Paris, at the age of 41. Articles by Tkachev that better characterize his literary physiognomy: “Delo”, 1867 - “Productive forces of Russia. Statistical essays” (1867, ¦ 2, 3, 4); "New books" (¦ 7, 8, 9, 11, 12); “German idealists and philistines” (regarding Scherr’s book: “Deutsche Cuktur und Sittengeschichte” ¦ 10, 11, 12). 1868 - “People of the future and heroes of the philistinism” (¦ 4 and 5); “Growing forces” (about the novels by V.A. Sleptsov, Marko Vovchka, M.V. Avdeev - ¦ 9 and 10); “Broken Illusions” (about Reshetnikov’s novels - ¦ 11, 12). 1869 - "About Daul's book "Women's Labor" and my article "Women's Question" (¦ 2). 1872 - "Unthought-out thoughts" (about the works of N. Uspensky, ¦ 1); "Unfinished people" (about Kushchevsky's novel: " Nikolai Negorev", ¦ 2 - 3); "Statistical notes on the theory of progress" (¦ 3); "Saved and those being saved" (about Boborykin's novel: "Solid Virtues", ¦ 10); "Unfinished Antiquity" (about the novel " Three countries of the world", Nekrasov and Stanitsky, and about the stories of Turgenev, ¦ 11 - 12). 1873 - "Statistical essays on Russia" (¦ 1, 4, 5, 7, 10); "Tendentious novel" [about the "Collected Works " A. Mikhailov (Sheller), ¦ 2, 6, 7]; “Sick people” (about “Demons” by F.M. Dostoevsky, ¦ 3, 4); “Prison and its principles” (¦ 6, 8). 1875 - “Empirical fiction writers and metaphysical fiction writers” (about the works of Kushchevsky, Gl. Uspensky, Boborykin, S. Smirnova, ¦ 3, 5, 7); “The role of thought in history” (regarding P. Mirtov’s “Essays in the History of Thought”, ¦ 9, 12). 1876 - “Literary potpourri” (about the novels: “Two Worlds” by Aleeva, “In the Wilderness” by M. Vovchka, “Teenager” by Dostoevsky and “Strength of Character” by S.I. Smirnova, ¦ 4, 5, 6); "French society at the end of the 18th century." (regarding Taine’s book, ¦ 3, 5, 7); “Will a small loan help us” (¦ 12). 1877 - “The idealist of the philistinism” (regarding Avdeev’s essay, ¦ 1); “Balanced Souls” (about Turgenev’s novel “New”, ¦ 2 - 4); “On the benefits of philosophy” (regarding the works of A.A. Kozlov and V.V. Lesevich, ¦ 5); "Edgar Quinet, critical and biographical essay" (¦ 6 - 7); 1878 - “Harmless satire” (about Shchedrin’s book: “In an environment of moderation and accuracy”, ¦ 1); “Salon Art” (about Tolstoy’s “Anna Karenina”, ¦ 2 and 4); “Treasuries of wisdom of Russian philosophers” (regarding “Letters on Scientific Philosophy” by V.V. Lesevich, ¦ 10, 11). 1879 - “A man in the salons of modern fiction” [about the works of Ivanov (Uspensky), Zlatovratsky, Vologdin (Zasodimsky) and A. Potekhin, ¦ 3, 6, 7, 8, 9]; "Optimism in science. Dedicated to the Free Economic Society" (¦ 6); “The only Russian sociologist” (about De Roberti’s “Sociology”, ¦ 12). 1880 - “The utilitarian principle in moral philosophy” (¦ 1); “Rotten Roots” (about the work of V. Krestovsky, ¦ 2, 3, 7, 8). N.F. Annensky.
Brief biographical encyclopedia. 2012
See also interpretations, synonyms, meanings of the word and what PETER NIKITICH TKACHEV is in Russian in dictionaries, encyclopedias and reference books:
- TKACHEV PETER NIKITICH in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
Pyotr Nikitich, Russian revolutionary, ideologist of the Jacobin trend in populism... - TKACHEV PETER NIKITICH
(1844-85/86) one of the ideologists of populism, publicist. Participant in the revolutionary movement of the 1860s. Employee of the magazines "Russian Word" and "Delo". Since 1873 in... - TKACHEV PETER NIKITICH
- TKACHEV PETER NIKITICH
(1844 - 1885/86), publicist, literary critic, sociologist, one of the ideologists of revolutionary populism. Participant in the revolutionary movement of the 1860s. Employee of the magazine "Russian... - PETER in the Bible Dictionary:
, Apostle - Simon, son (descendant) of Jonah (John 1:42), a fisherman from Bethsaida (John 1:44), who lived with his wife and mother-in-law in Capernaum (Matthew 8:14). ... - TKACHEV in the Literary Encyclopedia:
Pyotr Nikitich is a publicist and literary critic. He came from a small noble family. In 1861 he entered St. Petersburg University; soon... - PETER in the Big Encyclopedic Dictionary:
Old Russian architect of the 12th century. Builder of the St. George Cathedral of the Yuriev Monastery in Novgorod (started in ... - TKACHEV
Pyotr Nikitich is a writer. Genus. in 1844 in Pskov province, in a poor landowner family. Entered the Faculty of Law in St. Petersburg. ... - PETER SAINTS OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
1) St. martyr, suffered for his confession of faith at Lampsacus, during the Decius persecution, in 250; memory May 18; 2) St. ... - PETER in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
St. The Apostle is one of the most prominent disciples of I. Christ, who had a huge influence on the subsequent fate of Christianity. Originally from Galilee, fisherman... - PETER in the Modern Encyclopedic Dictionary:
- PETER in the Encyclopedic Dictionary:
(? - 1326), Metropolitan of All Rus' (from 1308). He supported the Moscow princes in their struggle for the great reign of Vladimir. In 1324... - TKACHEV
TKACHEV Pyotr Nikitich (1844-1885/86), one of the ideologists of populism, publicist. Participant roar. movements of the 1860s Sotr. and. "Russian Word" and "Delo". ... - PETER in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
PETER "TSAREVICH", see Ileika Muromets... - PETER in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
PETER RARESH (Retru Rares), mold. ruler in 1527-38, 1541-46; pursued a policy of centralization and fought against the tour. yoke, supporter of rapprochement with... - PETER in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
PETER OF LOMBARD (Retrus Lombardus) (c. 1100-60), Christ. theologian and philosopher, rep. scholastics, Bishop of Paris (from 1159). Studied with P. Abelard... - PETER in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
PETER THE venerable (Petrus Venerabilis) (c. 1092-1156), Christ. scientist, writer and church. figure, abbot of Cluny mon. (from 1122). Conducted reforms in... - PETER in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
PETER DAMIANI (Retrus Damiani) (c. 1007-1072), church. activist, theologian, cardinal (since 1057); formulated a position on philosophy as a handmaiden of theology. ... - PETER in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
"PETER THE GREAT", the first battleship grew. Navy; in service since 1877; the prototype grew. squadron battleships. From the beginning 20th century educational art ship, … - PETER in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
PETER OF AMIENS, Hermit (Petrus Eremita) (c. 1050-1115), French. monk, one of the leaders of the 1st Crusade. After the capture of Jerusalem (1099) he returned... - PETER in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
PETER II PETROVICH NEGOS, see Njegos... - PETER in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
PETER I PETROVICH NEGOS (1747-1830), ruler of Montenegro from 1781. Achieved (1796) actual. independence of the country, published “The Lawyer” in 1798 (added in ... - PETER in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
PETER III Fedorovich (1728-62), grew up. Emperor (since 1761), German. Prince Karl Peter Ulrich, son of the Duke of Holstein-Gottorp Karl Friedrich and Anna... - PETER in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
PETER II (1715-30), grew up. Emperor (from 1727), son of Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich. In fact, A.D. ruled the state under him. Menshikov, then Dolgorukov. ... - PETER in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
PETER I the Great (1672-1725), Tsar (from 1682), the first to grow up. Emperor (since 1721). Jr. son of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich from his second marriage... - PETER in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
PETER, other Russian architect 12th century The builder of the monumental St. George's Cathedral of Yuryev Mon. in Novgorod (started in ... - PETER in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
PETER (in the world Peter Fed. Polyansky) (1862-1937), Metropolitan of Krutitsky. Locum tenens of the patriarchal throne since 1925, arrested in the same year... - PETER in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
PETER (in the world Peter Simeonovich Mogila) (1596-1647), Metropolitan of Kiev and Galicia from 1632. Archimandrite of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra (from 1627). Founded Slavic-Greco-lat. ... - PETER in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
PETER (?-1326), Russian. Metropolitan since 1308. Supported Moscow. princes in their struggle for the great reign. In 1325 he transferred the metropolitan see... - PETER in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
PETER, in the New Testament, one of the twelve apostles. Original name Simon. Called by Jesus Christ to be an apostle together with his brother Andrew... - TKACHEV in the Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedia:
Petr Nikitich? writer. Genus. in 1844 in Pskov province, in a poor landowner family. Entered the Faculty of Law in St. Petersburg. ... - PETER in Collier's Dictionary:
the name of a number of European kings and emperors. See also: PETER: EMPERORS PETER: ... - PETER
I cut a window into... - PETER in the Dictionary for solving and composing scanwords:
Paradise... - PETER in the Russian Synonyms dictionary:
apostle, name, ... - PETER in the Complete Spelling Dictionary of the Russian Language:
Peter, (Petrovich, ... - TKACHEV
Pyotr Nikitich (1844-85/86), one of the ideologists of populism, publicist. Participant in the revolutionary movement of the 1860s. Employee of the magazines “Russian Word” and “Delo”. ... - PETER in the Modern Explanatory Dictionary, TSB:
in the New Testament one of the twelve apostles. Original name Simon. Called by Jesus Christ to be an apostle along with his brother Andrew and... - DOBRYNYA NIKITICH in the Wiki Quote Book:
Data: 2008-11-08 Time: 10:10:34 Dobrynya Nikitich is the hero of Russian epics. - * Black evil spirits, come out to fight honestly! *Try the silushki... - PETER (POLYANSKY)
Open Orthodox encyclopedia "TREE". Peter (Polyansky) (1862 - 1937), Metropolitan of Krutitsky, locum tenens of the patriarchal throne of the Russian Orthodox Church... - PETER (ZVEREV) in the Orthodox Encyclopedia Tree:
Open Orthodox encyclopedia "TREE". Attention, this article is not finished yet and contains only part of the necessary information. Peter (Zverev) (1878 ... - YASINSKY MIKHAIL NIKITICH in the Brief Biographical Encyclopedia:
Yasinsky (Mikhail Nikitich) - historian of Russian law. Born in 1862. Received his higher education at the Faculty of Law of the University of St. Vladimir. ...
– Russian thinker, ideologist of the Blanquist wing of democratic populism, publicist and lit. critic. Studied law. Faculty of Petersburg un-ta. In 1862 he began to collaborate in the magazines "Russian Word", "Delo", etc. In 1869, for the first time in legal Russian. published his own press. translation of the Charter of the 1st International. Arrested for roaring. propaganda among students, as well as in the case of S. Nechaev. In 1872, after the end of his prison term, he was deported to his homeland in Velikolutsky district, from where he fled abroad in 1873. In exile, T. for some time collaborated with the Lavrovsk press organ “Forward”; after the break with Lavrov, T., together with a group of Russian-Polish emigrants, published a magazine. "Alarm" (1875–81), on the pages of which he developed his revolutionary program. struggle. Abroad, T. became close to the Blanquists (see Blanquists) and participated in their gas campaign. "Ni Dieu ni ma?tre" ("Neither God nor Master"). From 1882 T. was seriously ill and in 1886 died in a psychiatric hospital. clinic in Paris. T.'s worldview was formed under the influence of the Russian revolutionary-democratic movement. and socialist ideologies of the 50s and 60s. and above all Chernyshevsky. Following Chernyshevsky, T. sets the task of turning the theoretical. and revolutionary past experience into the historical acceleration factor. process. However, in T.’s works, Chernyshevsky’s idea of the cross, socialism is modified, evolving from general sociological. models into the program directly. revolutionary actions. Ch. socialist task doctrine in T.’s formulation is to “... indicate and explain... those social data with the help of which it (socialism - Ed.) can be realized” (Elected works on socio-political topics, vol. 4, 1932, pp. 28–29). Considering the historical reality as a political object. action, T. created a whole philosophy of historical initiative, in which the will and action of revolutionaries was given the center. place. Following Chernyshevsky, T. rejects the theory of “originality” of history. the ways of Russia. Stating the fact that the post-reform development of the country is going “... in the same direction as the economic development of Western European states” (ibid., vol. 3, 1933, p. 69), T. notes the growth of Russian urban and rural bourgeoisie - conservative forces, the consolidation of which, in his opinion, could cast doubt on the socialist. Russia's perspective. It is in this regard that the time factor, the idea of immediate roar. revolution—play a primary role in Tkachev’s concept of revolution. Preliminary condition of the social revolution in Russia and ch. The task of the moment is, according to T., the unification of consciousness. elements of a coup into a conspiratorial centralist party. The organization of such a party, according to T., will not only make up for the lack of revolution. initiatives among the people, but will also give a powerful impetus to strengthening the political. activity of the "intelligent minority". Using such forms of struggle as conspiracy, disorganization of the state. mechanism, etc., such a party, according to T., will bring to life the dormant revolutionary, communist spirit among the people. spirit, will transform the peasantry from a possible roar. force into actual force. When the people see that “... that formidable power, before which they are accustomed to tremble and grovel... is desecrated, upset, disorganized, powerless - oh, then they will have nothing and no one to fear, and... hidden discontent, his suppressed embitterment will burst out with uncontrollable force..." (ibid., p. 244, see also p. 92). It is impossible to revolutionize the people through education in the current situation. It is not enlightenment that should precede the revolution, as Lavrov argued, but the revolution should precede enlightenment, T. concludes. Unlike the Bakuninists (see Bakunin), T. argued that the state, reorganized into an organ of revolution. dictatorship will continue after the coup so that the “intelligent minority” can implement socialism. reorganization of your entire life. T. called his worldview “realism,” meaning by it “... such a sober attitude to the issues of life, which is as far from abstract idealism as from narrow philistinism” (ibid., vol. 1, 1932, p. 131 ). In the concept of “realism” T. included elements of materialism. interpretation of history, in particular, recognizing, following Marx and Chernyshevsky, economics. factor as a “lever” of the social movement and considering the historical. process with t.zr. economic struggle interests are different. classes. T.'s "realism" had a clearly defined "anti-metaphysical" orientation. Contrasting, following Pisarev, his “realism” with any philosophy, T. believes that “... philosophy has nothing in common with positive science,” since it poses “... unsolvable problems, wandering in the unknown world of “causes and essences” , inaccessible to human understanding..." (ibid., vol. 5, 1935, pp. 173–74). Being in his understanding synonymous with ideology, philosophy, according to T., is always the justification for politics. conformism is always an apology for the existing order of things. On the contrary, "realism" by its definition is critical and revolutionary; connecting the future with the present, the existing with the should, he indicates the ways of transforming the world. T. was one of the first in Russia to oppose the neo-Kantian and Machian revision of materialism. Socio-political reality, according to T. , is the dynamic result of the application of will to a set of circumstances. Therefore, “starting from reality” does not mean adapting to it, but, on the contrary, taking into account the possibilities arising from consciousness. interference in it. Quality feature of historical reality is that it does not exist outside and apart from the activities of people; personality appears here as beings. moment of the process. Historical determinism, according to T., includes means. "degree of freedom"; the limits of the possible in history are so flexible that individuals, an active minority, can introduce “... into the process of development of social life a lot of things that are not only not determined, but sometimes even decisively contradict both previous historical prerequisites and the given conditions of society” ( ibid., vol. 3, p. 193). The consciousness, will and passion of people create reality. From a materialistic point of view. anthropology T. criticized Lavrov's (see Lavrov) theory of progress, but he was not able to completely overcome the shortcomings of the old, idealistic. understanding of history. Freeing ourselves from the abstract opposition of man to the world around him, speaking out against the historical. fatalism, providentialism, criticizing the “subjective method” in sociology, T. creates his own subjective and voluntaristic scheme of historical. process, according to the cut, the source of progress is the will of the department. personalities. Denial of k.-l. immutable laws that strictly define social relations, T. often turns into historical apologetics. accidents. In none of his works does T. rise to the level of historical comprehension. necessity as that real prerequisite, which already contains the conditions for the manifestation of collective (and individual) will. Sociological T.'s scheme was criticized by Engels, as well as by Plekhanov and other Russians. Marxists. In the field of aesthetics and literature. critics T., following Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov and Pisarev, affirms the principles of realism, high ideological acuity and society. the significance of the arts. works. The doctrine of T. had a difficult fate in Russian history. roar movements. Not understood and not accepted by the populist. intelligentsia of the late 60s - mid. 70s, which rejected the “political revolution” in the name of “social”, it made its way only at the very end of the 70s. in connection with the transition of the Narodnaya Volya to a direct attack on the autocracy. The defeat of "People's Will" and the political era that came in connection with this. the reactions essentially meant the defeat of the Tkachev doctrine and, at the same time, the collapse of Blanquist tendencies in Russia would liberate. movement. Op.: Favorite soch., vol. 1–6, M., 1932–37; Favorite literary criticism articles, M.–L., . Lit.: Marx K., Engels F., Soch., 2nd ed., vol. 18, p. 518–48; vol. 22, p. 438–53; Lenin V.I., Soch., 4th ed., vol. 5, p. 477; vol. 10, p. 319; vol. 16, p. 76; Lekhanov G.V., Izbr. Philosopher proizv., vol. 1, M., 1956, p. 51–370; Kozmin B.P., P.N.T. and Rev. movement of the 1860s, M., 1922; him, P.N.T. and his role in the history of the Russian revolution. thoughts of the 60s, "Bulletin of Labor", 1922, No. 2(17); him, Tkachev and Lavrov, in the collection: Militant materialist, book. 1, M., 1924; him, P.N.T. and populism, “Katorga and exile”, 1926, book. 22; him, Enter. articles, in the book: Tkachev P. N., Izbr. soch., vol. 1, 5, M., 1932–35; him, Enter. article, in collection: Tkachev P.N., Izbr. literary criticism articles, M.–L., ; him, On the question of P.N.T.’s attitude to Marxism, in the book: Lit. inheritance, vol. 7–8, M., 1933; him, Rus. Section I of the International, M., 1957; his, Populism on bourgeois-democratic. stage will be released. movements in Russia, in the book: Historical. notes, vol. 65, 1959; Baturin N., On the legacy of the “Russian Jacobins”, “Proletarian Revolution”, 1924, No. 7(30); his, More about Russian flowers. Jacobinism, ibid., 1925, No. 8 (43); Ullman G., Towards the publication of selected works. P. N. Tkachev, ed. B. P. Kozymina, “Problems of Marxism”, 1933, No. 7; ?euel?., Russian economic. thought of the 60s–70s. 19th century and Marxism, M., 1956, p. 148–63; Levin Sh. M., Society. movement in Russia in the 60–70s of the 19th century, M., 1958; History of philosophy in the USSR, vol. 3, M., 1968, ch. 4. I. Pantin. Moscow.
