Social trends in Russia after the December uprising. Great encyclopedia of oil and gas

Social movements and political trends in Russia in the second half of the 19th century

Reforms of the 60-70s. led to the growth of the liberation movement in society, the emergence of numerous circles; groups and organizations seeking to change the political regime in the country. The half-heartedness and incompleteness of many transformations caused disappointment in progressive circles of society. In addition to internal reasons, revolutionary ideas were of great importance, penetrating

who came to Russia from Europe, which were actively accepted by society in conditions of widespread nihilistic views (nihilism as an ideological concept is characterized by hypertrophied doubt and denial of generally accepted values, absolutization of material and individual principles).

Liberation movement of the 60s - early 70s. The period of the early 60s. in the history of the Russian liberation movement it was called the “proclamation period”. Proclamations, issued in the form of appeals to various sectors of society, became a response to the peasant reform of 1861. These appeals, the authors of which were most often commoners, students, and members of various underground circles, explained the predatory meaning of the reform and contained a call to fight for rights and freedoms. Although most of the proclamations were of a relatively moderate nature, appeals appeared calling for the violent overthrow of power, extremist actions, and the organization of a revolutionary dictatorship (the most famous of these proclamations was “Young Russia”, compiled in May 1862 by student P. Zaichnevsky). At the end of 1861 ᴦ. In St. Petersburg, an all-Russian revolutionary group “Land and Freedom” was formed. Its program was moderate in nature: it included demands for the transfer to the peasants of those plots that they owned before the reform, the replacement of government officials with elected ones, and the election of a central popular representation. The implementation of these provisions was to occur as a result of the peasant revolution, which was expected to come very soon. When the hope for a speedy uprising of the peasants did not materialize, the organization self-liquidated (beginning of 1864). In the second half of the 60s - early 70s in Russia (primarily in university cities) numerous revolutionary democratic circles of the intelligentsia emerged. The most famous among them were the circle of N.A. Ishutin, one of whose members is D.V. Karakozov - committed on April 4, 1866. assassination attempt on Alexander II, and the SP circle. Nechaev, whose program was of the most radical nature.
Posted on ref.rf
The organizer of this society is S. Nechaev co-

created the so-called “Catechism of a Revolutionary”, in which he substantiated the extreme importance of the most extreme methods in the process of fighting the autocracy: terror, blackmail, destruction, etc. For the first time, such a concept as revolutionary extreme importance was introduced, for the sake of which it was necessary to abandon existing moral and moral standards. By the beginning of the 70s. Most of these circles were discovered and destroyed by the authorities.

Russian populism of the 70s - 80s. Populism became the main direction of the liberation movement in post-reform Russia. Adherents of this ideology believed that the intelligentsia owed a debt to the people and should devote themselves to ridding them of oppression and exploitation. Being socialists, the Narodniks believed that Russia would move to socialism, bypassing the capitalist stage; the support for this will be the peasant community, in which the populists saw socialist features. There was no unity among the populists on issues of theory and tactics of the revolutionary struggle. Three major trends in populism can be distinguished. The theorist of the so-called “rebellious movement” was M.A. Bakunin. He argued that the Russian peasant is a socialist and a rebel “out of instinct”; there is no need to teach him this, only a call to revolt is needed. M. Bakunin was one of the founders of Russian anarchism, believing that any state power, even the most democratic, is a “source of exploitation and despotism.” He opposes any form of state to the principle of “federalism,” ᴛ.ᴇ. federation of self-governing rural communities, production associations based on collective property tools and means of production.

The founder and theoretician of the propaganda direction was P.L. Lavrov. He believed that it was extremely important to prepare the people for revolution and socialism through long propaganda. P.N. Tkachev was the main ideologist of the so-called “conspiratorial movement”. According to his theory, power was to be seized by a well-organized revolutionary party, which would then introduce socialism into Russian life.

In the mid-70s, among the populists,

The practice of “going to the people” began. A number of active figures of this organization moved to the village, trying to incite a peasant revolt through revolutionary propaganda. At the same time, the peasants were very wary of such calls and did not show any desire to accept socialist ideas. The second campaign to the people, in which intellectuals settled in the countryside, systematically agitating the peasants for the revolution, ended no more successfully than the first. In 1876 ᴦ. The populists changed their tactics. A large revolutionary organization is being created, called “Earth”. And will. The organization was led by A.D. Mikhailov, G.V. Plekhanov, O.V. An-tekman, etc.
Posted on ref.rf
It was a well-organized and well-secret organization that had its branches ("communities") in the provinces. The organization's program guidelines included demands for the transfer of all land to peasants, the introduction of lay self-government, freedom of speech, assembly, conscience, etc. The main activity of “Land and Freedom” was propaganda among various segments of society. Terror was considered only as a means of self-defense or specifically targeted retribution, but not as the main method of struggle. In 1879 ᴦ. A sharp struggle developed within the organization between supporters of terror tactics (A. Zhelyabov’s group) and G. Plekhanov, who put propaganda at the forefront. The result of these disputes was the emergence of two new organizations - “People’s Will”, which moved on to a direct struggle against the autocracy, And“Black redistribution”, which stood in the previous landowner positions. The main goal of the Narodnaya Volya was regicide, which was supposed to be a signal for a general revolution. After a series of unsuccessful attempts, on March 1, 1881, Alexander II was killed by a bomb thrown by student terrorist I. Grinevitsky. The death of the tsar, contrary to expectations, did not cause a revolution and the collapse of the autocracy. Soon, most of the members of “Narodnaya Volya” were arrested and executed, and the organization itself was destroyed after an unsuccessful attempt on the life of Emperor Alexander III.

The beginning of the social democratic movement in Russia V 80 - 90s. XIX century The 80s and 90s in Russia were

time of passion for Marxism. This teaching, penetrating from Europe, became the basis of the social democratic movement of social thought in the country. The first Russian Marxist group was the “Emancipation of Labor” organization, founded by G. Plekhanov in 1883 in Switzerland. G. Plekhanov argued that the peasants were incapable of revolution. Driving force The revolutionary movement of the future, in his opinion, should be the working class. Since the mid-80s, Marxist circles began to emerge in Russia. Their leaders - D. Blagoev, P. Tochissky, M. Brusnev and others - conducted Marxist propaganda among the workers, organized strikes, May meetings, strikes. In 1895 in St. Petersburg V.I. Lenin and YL. Martov created the “Union of Struggle for the Liberation of the Working Class,” which was a large-scale social democratic association, which included about 20 circles. These organizations were a prerequisite for the creation of social democratic parties; within their framework, there was an increase in the political literacy of workers, and the foundations for further revolutionary struggle were laid.

Liberal opposition movement. The liberal opposition, which operated in post-reform Russia as part of zemstvo institutions, expressed its dissatisfaction with the arbitrariness of the authorities, demanded the improvement of the state system (representative institutions), but, at the same time, advocated a peaceful resolution of problems, fearing a revolutionary explosion. The oppositional sentiments of the intelligentsia were reflected in the pages of such periodicals as “Voice”, “Bulletin of Europe”, “Russian Thought”. The Zemstvo liberal opposition movement functioned in the form of illegal meetings of Zemstvo residents, which developed and sent the so-called “addresses” to the Tsar, in which proposals for various reforms were made.

In the 80s - 90s. The Zemstvo movement has undergone a noticeable evolution: there is a convergence of liberal and legal Marxist ideologies. In 1899, the “Conversation” circle arose, which set as its goal the struggle against the bureaucracy for freedom local government. During these years, the foundations of liberal ideology were laid, political

technical doctrines and concepts of Russian liberalism.

However, the activities of populist organizations and groups can be identified as the core of the liberation movement of the second half of the 19th century. Despite their political immaturity and numerous misconceptions, the participants in this movement are becoming a real force that has a noticeable influence on the political development of the country. At this time, the government, relying on its punitive and repressive machine, has difficulty coping with the revolutionaries. Overall, second half of XIX century can be characterized as a preparatory stage in the liberation movement. The basic theoretical and practical foundations of revolutionary activity are laid. The role of a strong, well-knit organization with a single will has noticeably increased.

All this, combined with the growth of political literacy and organization of the masses, primarily the growing working class, significantly influenced future events, becoming the basis of the first Russian revolution of 1905 - 1907.

Social movements and political trends in Russia in the second half of the 19th century - concept and types. Classification and features of the category "Social movements and political trends in Russia in the second half of the 19th century" 2017, 2018.

Since the 60s of the XIX century. Russia has entered a new revolutionary-democratic or raznochinsky stage in the liberation movement. During this period, neither the noble revolutionaries, who were defeated in December 1825, nor the bourgeoisie, which, under the conditions of feudal Russia, had not yet formed as a class, could lead the movement.

Raznochintsy (people from different classes of society, people of “different ranks”) - representatives of the democratic intelligentsia and in the 40-50s played a noticeable role in the Russian social movement, but now they led this movement, which was aimed at eliminating feudal-serfdom remnants in the country.

Objectively, the ideology and tactics of the commoners reflected the struggle of the peasant masses, and the main issue in the 60s was participation in the people's revolution, which would put an end to autocracy, landownership, and class restrictions. The task of preparing a revolutionary uprising required the unification and centralization of democratic forces in the country and the creation of a revolutionary organization. In Russia, the initiative to create such an organization belonged to N.G. Chernyshevsky and his associates, abroad - A.I. Herzen and N.P. Ogarev. The result of these efforts was the creation in St. Petersburg of the “Russian Central People's Committee” (1862), as well as local branches of the organization, called “Land and Freedom”. The organization included several hundred members, and branches, in addition to the capital, existed in Kazan, Nizhny Novgorod, Moscow, Tver and other cities.

According to members of the organization, a peasant uprising was supposed to break out in Russia in the spring of 1863, when the deadline for drawing up statutory charters was expiring. The activities of the society were aimed at agitation and propaganda, which were supposed to give the future performance an organized character and stir up broad sections of the masses. Illegal publishing activities were established, a printing house was created in Russia, and the printing house of A.I. was actively used. Herzen. Attempts were made to coordinate the Russian and Polish revolutionary movements. However, the Polish uprising of 1863-1864. ended in defeat, the peasant uprising did not occur in Russia, and Land and Freedom was unable to organize a revolutionary uprising. Already in the summer of 1862, the autocracy went on the offensive. The magazines "Sovremennik" and " Russian word", arrests were made in St. Petersburg, Moscow and other cities. Some of the revolutionaries, fleeing persecution, emigrated. N.G. Chernyshevsky, D.I. Pisarev, N.A. Serno-Solovyevich were arrested (Chernyshevsky, sentenced to hard labor, spent 20 years in hard labor and exile).

In 1864, the society, weakened by arrests but never discovered, dissolved itself.

The defeat of the rebellious Poland strengthened the reaction in Russia, and the Polish uprising became the last wave of the revolutionary situation of the late 50s and early 60s. The first revolutionary situation in Russia did not end in revolution due to the absence of the necessary subjective factor: the presence of a class capable of becoming a hegemon during the brewing bourgeois revolution. As a result of government repression in the mid-60s, the situation in the democratic environment changed significantly. An ideological crisis emerged in the movement, which spilled over into the pages of the democratic press. The search for a way out of the crisis led to discussions about the prospects of the movement (the controversy between Sovremennik and Russian Word), and the creation of new circles (N.A. Ishutina and I.A. Khudyakova, G.A. Lopatina). One of the members of Ishutin’s circle, D.V. Karakozov, April 4, 1866 in St. Petersburg, shot at Alexander II. However, neither the execution of Karakozov nor the period of government terror that followed it interrupted the revolutionary movement. Karamzin N. M. History of the Russian State in 12 volumes. M.: INFRA, 2003.-487 p.

Ideological movements and social

Movements in Russia at the turn of the century

Reasons for the rise of the social movement.

· preservation of the old socio-political system and, first of all, the autocratic system with its police apparatus, the privileged position of the nobility, and the lack of democratic freedoms.

· unresolved agrarian-peasant issue, which remained central in the public life of the country.

· To the previous social contradictions (between peasants and landowners), new ones were added, caused by the development of capitalism:

o between workers and entrepreneurs,

o liberal bourgeoisie and conservative nobility,

o between the autocracy and the peoples that were part of the Russian Empire.

· The half-hearted reforms of the 60-70s and fluctuations in government policy (either measures towards liberalization, or increased repression) also intensified the social movement.

Distinctive feature social life of Russia in the second half of the 19th century. was political inertia of the broad masses:

· Peasant unrest that broke out after 1861 quickly faded away,

The labor movement was in its infancy.

· The people preserved Tsarist illusions.

The bourgeoisie also showed political inertia. In the post-reform period, three directions in the social movement finally took shape: conservatives, liberals and radicals. They had different political goals, organizational forms and methods of struggle, spiritual and moral and ethical positions.

Conservatives.

The social basis of this direction was reactionary nobility, clergy, philistinism, merchants and a significant part of the peasantry.

Conservatism of the second half of the 19th century. remained within the ideological framework of the theory of “official nationality”:

· Autocracy was still declared the most important pillar of the state, ensuring the greatness and glory of Russia.

· Orthodoxy was proclaimed the basis of spiritual life people and was actively propagated.

· Nationality meant the unity of the king with the people, which implied the absence of grounds for social conflicts. In this, conservatives saw the uniqueness of Russia's historical path.

In the domestic political sphere, conservatives fought for the inviolability of autocracy, the curtailment of reforms and the implementation of counter-reforms. In the socio-economic sphere they advocated strengthening the position of the nobility, maintaining landownership. In foreign policy they developed ideas Pan-Slavism - unity Slavic peoples around Russia. In the spiritual sphere, representatives of the conservative intelligentsia defended the principles of a patriarchal lifestyle, religiosity, and unconditional submission to authority.

Conservative ideologists were K.P. Pobedonostsev, D.A. Tolstoy, M.N. Katkov. The spread of their ideas was facilitated by the bureaucratic apparatus, the church and the reactionary press.

Liberals.

The social basis of the liberal trend was bourgeois landowners, part of the bourgeoisie and intelligentsia (scientists, writers, journalists, doctors, etc.).

They defended the idea of a common path of historical development for Russia with Western Europe. Liberals insisted on the introduction of constitutional principles, democratic freedoms and the continuation of reforms. They advocated the creation of an all-Russian elected body (Zemsky Sobor), expansion of rights and functions local authorities self-government (zemstvos). Their political ideal was constitutional monarchy.

In the domestic political sphere, liberals advocated maintaining a strong executive power, considering it a necessary factor in Russia's stability. In the socio-economic sphere, they welcomed the development of capitalism and freedom of enterprise, proposed eliminating class privileges, lowering redemption payments, and taking measures to promote the establishment of rule of law And civil society. Recognition of the inviolability of the individual, his right to free spiritual development was the basis of their moral and ethical views.

Liberals stood for an evolutionary path of development, considering reforms the main method of socio-political modernization of Russia. The ideologists of the liberals were scientists, publicists, zemstvo leaders (K.D. Kavelin, B.N. Chicherin, V.A. Goltsev, D.I. Shakhovskoy, F.I. Rodichev, P.A. Dolgorukov). The liberals did not create a stable and organized opposition to the government.

Features of Russian liberalism: its noble character due to the political weakness of the bourgeoisie and its closeness to conservatism. Liberals and conservatives were united by the fear of popular “rebellion” and the actions of radicals.

Radicals.

Representatives of this trend launched active anti-government activities. Unlike conservatives and liberals, they sought to violent methods of transforming Russia and a radical reorganization of society (revolutionary path).

In the second half of the 19th century. radicals did not have wide social basis, although objectively they expressed interests peasants and workers. Their movement involved people from different walks of life who devoted themselves to serving the people.

Radicalism was largely provoked by the reactionary policies of the government and the conditions of the Russian reality (police brutality, lack of freedom of speech, assembly and organization). Therefore, in Russia itself there could be only secret organizations. Radical theorists were generally forced to emigrate and act abroad. This contributed to strengthening the ties between the Russian and Western European revolutionary movements.

In the radical direction of the second half of the 19th century. the dominant position was occupied by a movement whose ideological basis was the theory of the special, non-capitalist development of Russia and “community socialism”.

In the history of the radical movement of the second half of the 19th century. There are three stages:

· 60s - the formation of revolutionary democratic ideology and the creation of secret raznochinsky circles;

· 70s - formalization of the populist doctrine and the activities of revolutionary populist organizations;

· 80-90s - the activation of liberal populists and the beginning of the spread of Marxism, on the basis of which the first social democratic groups were created.

Organizations

"Sixties".

The rise of the peasant movement in 1861-1862. was the people's response to the injustice of the February 19 reform. This galvanized radicals who hoped for a peasant uprising.

In the 60s, two centers of radical trends emerged.

· One - around the editorial office of “The Bell”, published by A.G. Herzen in London. He propagated his theory of “communal socialism” and sharply criticized the predatory conditions for the liberation of peasants.

· The second center arose in Russia around the editorial office of the Sovremennik magazine. Its ideologist was N.G. Chernyshevsky, the idol of the common youth of that time. He also criticized the government for the essence of the reform, dreamed of socialism, but, unlike A.I. Herzen, saw the need for Russia to use the experience of the European development model.

Based on the ideas of N.G. Chernyshevsky, several secret organizations were formed: the circle “ Velikorus” (1861-1863), “Land and Freedom” (1861-1864). The left radicals set the task of preparing a people's revolution.

"Land and Freedom".

It was the first major revolutionary democratic organization. It included several hundred members from different social strata: officials, officers, writers, students.

The first secret organizations did not last long. Some members of the organizations (including N.G. Chernyshevsky) were arrested, others emigrated. The government managed to repel the onslaught of radicals in the first half of the 60s.

In the second half of the 60s, secret circles arose again. Their members preserved the ideological heritage of N.G. Chernyshevsky, but, having lost faith in the possibility of a popular revolution in Russia, switched to narrowly conspiratorial and terrorist tactics. In 1866, a member of the circle N.A. Ishutina D.V. Karakozov attempted to assassinate Tsar Alexander II.

In 1869, teacher S.G. Nechaev and journalist P.N. Tkachev created an organization in St. Petersburg that called on student youth to prepare an uprising and use any means in the fight against the government. After the defeat of the circle, S.G. Nechaev went abroad for a while, but in the fall of 1869 he returned and founded the “People’s Retribution” organization in Moscow. He was distinguished by extreme political adventurism and demanded blind obedience to his orders from his participants. For refusing to submit to the dictatorship, student I.I. Ivanov was falsely accused of treason and killed. The police destroyed the organization. S.G. Nechaev fled to Switzerland.

At the turn of the 60-70s, largely based on the ideas of A.I. Herzen and N.G. Chernyshevsky, took shape populist ideology. It became very popular among democratically minded intellectuals in the last third of the 19th century. There were two trends among the populists: revolutionary and liberal.

Reforms of the 60-70s led to the growth of the liberation movement in society, the emergence of numerous circles; groups and organizations seeking to change the political regime in the country. The half-heartedness and incompleteness of many transformations caused disappointment in progressive circles of society. In addition to internal reasons, revolutionary ideas were of great importance, penetrating

Liberation movement of the 60s - early 70s. The period of the early 60s. In the history of the Russian liberation movement it was called the “proclamation period.” Proclamations, issued in the form of appeals to various sections of society, became a response to the peasant reform of 1861. These appeals, the authors of which were most often commoners, students, and members of various underground circles, explained the predatory meaning of the reform and contained a call to fight for rights and freedoms . Although most of the proclamations were of a relatively moderate nature, appeals appeared calling for the violent overthrow of power, extremist actions, and the organization of a revolutionary dictatorship (the most famous of these proclamations was “Young Russia”, compiled in May 1862 by student P. Zaichnevsky) . At the end of 1861, an all-Russian revolutionary group, “Land and Freedom,” was formed in St. Petersburg. Its program was moderate in nature: it included demands for the transfer to the peasants of those plots that they owned before the reform, the replacement of government officials with elected ones, and the election of a central popular representation. The implementation of these provisions was to occur as a result of the peasant revolution, which was expected to come very soon. When the hope for a speedy uprising of the peasants did not materialize, the organization self-liquidated (beginning of 1864). In the second half of the 60s and early 70s, numerous revolutionary-democratic circles of intelligentsia emerged in Russia (primarily in university cities). The most famous among them were the circle of N.A. Ishutin, one of whose members is D.V. Karakozov - committed an assassination attempt on Alexander II on April 4, 1866, and the circle of the joint venture. Nechaev, whose program was of the most radical nature. The organizer of this society is S. Nechaev co-

created the so-called “Catechism of a Revolutionary”, in which he substantiated the need for the most extreme methods in the process of fighting the autocracy: terror, blackmail, destruction, etc. For the first time, such a concept as revolutionary necessity was introduced, for the sake of which it was necessary to abandon existing moral and moral norms . By the beginning of the 70s. Most of these circles were discovered and destroyed by the authorities.

Russian populism of the 70s - 80s. Populism became the main direction of the liberation movement in post-reform Russia. Adherents of this ideology believed that the intelligentsia owed a debt to the people and should devote themselves to ridding them of oppression and exploitation. Being socialists, the Narodniks believed that Russia would move to socialism, bypassing the capitalist stage; the support for this will be the peasant community, in which the populists saw socialist features. There was no unity among the populists on issues of theory and tactics of the revolutionary struggle. Three major trends in populism can be distinguished. The theorist of the so-called “rebellious movement” was M.A. Bakunin. He argued that the Russian peasant is a socialist and a rebel “by instinct”; there is no need to teach him this, all that is needed is a call to revolt. M. Bakunin was one of the founders of Russian anarchism, believing that any state power, even the most democratic, is “a source of exploitation and despotism.” He opposes any form of state to the principle of “federalism”, i.e. a federation of self-governing rural communities, production associations based on the collective ownership of tools and means of production.

The founder and theorist of the propaganda movement was P.L. Lavrov. He believed that the people needed to be prepared for revolution and socialism through long propaganda. P.N. Tkachev was the main ideologist of the so-called “conspiratorial movement.” According to his theory, power was to be seized by a well-organized revolutionary party, which would then introduce socialism into Russian life.

In the mid-70s, among the populists,

In 1876 the populists changed their tactics. A large revolutionary organization was created, called “Land and Freedom”. The organization was led by A.D. Mikhailov, G.V. Plekhanov, O.V. An-tekman, etc. It was a well-organized and well-secret organization that had its branches (“communities”) in the provinces. The organization's program guidelines included demands for the transfer of all land to peasants, the introduction of lay self-government, freedom of speech, assembly, conscience, etc. The main activity of “Land and Freedom” was propaganda among various segments of society. Terror was considered only as a means of self-defense or specifically targeted retribution, but not as the main method of struggle. In 1879, a sharp struggle unfolded within the organization between supporters of terror tactics (A. Zhelyabov’s group) and G. Plekhanov, who put propaganda at the forefront. The result of these disputes was the emergence of two new organizations - “People's Will”, which moved to a direct struggle against the autocracy, and “Black Redistribution”, which stood on its previous land-will positions. The main goal of the Narodnaya Volya was regicide, which was supposed to be a signal for a general revolution. After a series of unsuccessful attempts, on March 1, 1881, Alexander II was killed by a bomb thrown by student terrorist I. Grinevitsky. The death of the tsar, contrary to expectations, did not cause a revolution and the collapse of the autocracy. Soon, most of the members of Narodnaya Volya were arrested and executed, and the organization itself was destroyed after an unsuccessful attempt on the life of Emperor Alexander III.

The beginning of the social democratic movement in Russia in the 80s and 90s. XIX century The 80s and 90s in Russia were

time of passion for Marxism. This teaching, penetrating from Europe, became the basis of the social democratic movement of social thought in the country. The first Russian Marxist group was the “Emancipation of Labor” organization, founded by G. Plekhanov in 1883 in Switzerland. G. Plekhanov argued that the peasants were incapable of revolution. The driving force of the revolutionary movement of the future, in his opinion, should be the working class. Since the mid-80s, Marxist circles began to emerge in Russia. Their leaders - D. Blagoev, P. Tochissky, M. Brusnev and others - conducted Marxist propaganda among the workers, organized strikes, May meetings, strikes. In 1895 in St. Petersburg V.I. Lenin and YL. Martov created the “Union of Struggle for the Liberation of the Working Class,” which was a large-scale social democratic association, which included about 20 circles. These organizations were a prerequisite for the creation of social democratic parties; within their framework, there was an increase in the political literacy of workers, and the foundations for further revolutionary struggle were laid.

In the 80s - 90s. The Zemstvo movement has undergone a noticeable evolution: there is a convergence of liberal and legal Marxist ideologies. In 1899, the “Conversation” circle arose, which set as its goal the fight against the bureaucracy for freedom of local self-government. During these years, the foundations of liberal ideology were laid, political

technical doctrines and concepts of Russian liberalism.

Thus, the activities of populist organizations and groups can be identified as the core of the liberation movement of the second half of the 19th century. Despite their political immaturity and numerous misconceptions, the participants in this movement are becoming a real force that has a noticeable influence on the political development of the country. During this period, the government, relying on its punitive and repressive machine, had difficulty coping with the revolutionaries. In general, the second half of the 19th century can be characterized as a preparatory stage in the liberation movement. The basic theoretical and practical foundations of revolutionary activity are laid. The role of a strong, well-knit organization with a single will has noticeably increased.

All this, combined with the growth of political literacy and organization of the masses, especially the growing working class, significantly influenced future events, becoming the basis of the first Russian revolution of 1905 - 1907.

Represent social movements. According to the definition of D. Della Porta and M. Diani, social movements are “informal networks based on shared values and solidarity by all their participants, mobilizing their participants about conflict issues through the regular use of various forms of protest.”

Social movements are a non-institutional type of collective action, and accordingly they should not be confused with social institutions. Social institutions are stable and stable formations, but social movements have an indefinite time cycle, they are unstable, and under some conditions they easily disintegrate. Social institutions are designed to support the system of social relations, public order, and social movements do not have a stable institutional status, most members of society treat them with indifference, and some even with hostility.

Social movements are a special type of social process. All social movements begin with a feeling of dissatisfaction with the existing social structure. Objective events and situations create the conditions for understanding the injustice of the existing state of affairs. People see that the authorities are not taking measures to change the situation. At the same time, there are certain standards, norms, knowledge of how it should be. Then people unite into a social movement.

IN modern society can be distinguished various social movements: youth, feminist, political, revolutionary, religious, etc. A social movement may not be structurally formalized, it may not have a fixed membership. This can be a spontaneous short-term movement or a socio-political movement with a high degree of organization and a significant duration of activity (political parties are born from them).

Let us consider such social movements as expressive, utopian, revolutionary, reformist.

Expressive movements

Participants in such movements, with the help of special rituals, dances, and games, create a mystical reality in order to almost completely separate themselves from the imperfect life of society. These include mysteries Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Persia and India. Nowadays, expressive movements are most clearly manifested among young people: in associations of rockers, punks, goths, emo, bikers, etc. with their attempts to create their own subculture. As a rule, growing up, young people - participants in these movements - get a profession, a job, start a family, children, and eventually become ordinary people.

Expressive movements include various kinds monarchical associations in Russia, movements of war veterans. The common basis in such associations is the traditions of the past, the real or imagined exploits of ancestors, the desire to idealize old customs and style of behavior. Usually these harmless associations are busy with memories and the creation of memoirs, but under certain conditions they can induce a previously passive population to take action and can become an intermediate link between non-political and active political movements. In the process of ethnic conflicts they can play an extremely negative role.

Utopian movements

Already in antiquity, Plato tried to describe the future perfect society in his dialogue “The Republic”. However, the philosopher’s attempts to create such a society were unsuccessful. The movements of the first Christians, which were created on the basis of ideas of universal equality, turned out to be more resilient, since their members did not strive for personal happiness and material well-being, but wanted to create ideal relationships.

Secular “perfect” societies began to appear on earth since the English humanist Thomas More wrote his famous book “Utopia” in 1516 (the word “utopia” (Greek) can be understood both as “a place that does not exist” and as "blessed country") Utopian movements arose as attempts to create an ideal social system on earth with kind, humane people and fair public relations. The Munster Commune (1534), the communes of Robert Owen (1817), the phalanx of Charles Fourier (1818) and many other utopian organizations quickly disintegrated for many reasons, and primarily due to the underestimation of the natural qualities of man - the desire to achieve well-being in life, the desire to realize one’s abilities , work and receive adequate remuneration for it.

However, the desire of people to change the conditions in which they live should not be underestimated. This is especially true of groups whose members consider existing relations to be unfair and therefore seek to decisively change their social status.

Revolutionary movement

Revolution- an unexpected, rapid, often violent, dramatic change social system, structure and functions of the main social institutions. Revolution should be distinguished from apical coup.“Palace” coups are carried out by people at the helm of government, they leave unchanged

social institutions and the system of power in society, replacing, as a rule, only the top officials of the state.

Typically, a revolutionary movement develops gradually in an atmosphere of general social dissatisfaction. The following typical stages of development of revolutionary movements are distinguished:

accumulation of social dissatisfaction over a number of years;
the emergence of motives for active action and rebellion;
a revolutionary explosion caused by the vacillations and weakness of the ruling elite;
exit to active positions radicals who take over
power and destroy the opposition; o the period of the terror regime;
a return to a calm state, stable power and some samples of the previous pre-revolutionary life.

It was according to this scenario that all the most significant revolutions took place.

Reform movement

Reforms are carried out with the aim of correcting the defects of the existing social order, in contrast to a revolution, the goal of which is to destroy the entire social system and create a fundamentally new one social order, radically different from before. Historical experience shows that timely necessary reforms often prevent revolution if the basis for social reforms are the interests of the population. Where totalitarian or authoritarian rule blocks the movement of reform, the only way to eliminate the shortcomings of the social system is a revolutionary movement. In traditionally democratic countries, for example Sweden, Belgium, Denmark, radical movements have few supporters, while in totalitarian regimes, repressive policies constantly provoke revolutionary movements and unrest.

Stages of a social movement

In any social movement, with all the features determined by the specifics of the country, region, people, four identical stages are distinguished: initial anxiety, excitement, formalization, subsequent institutionalization.

Worry stage is associated with the emergence of uncertainty among the population about the future, a sense of social injustice, and a breakdown in the system of values and habitual norms of behavior. Thus, in Russia, after the events of August 1991 and the official introduction of market mechanisms, millions of people found themselves in an unusual situation: without work, without a means of subsistence, without the opportunity to assess the situation within the framework of traditional ideology, when established norms of morality and law began to change. values. This has led to the emergence of strong social anxiety among a significant part of the population and creates the preconditions for the formation of various social movements.

Excitation stage occurs if, at the stage of anxiety, people begin to associate the deterioration of their condition with real social processes to such an extent that they have a need for active action. Supporters of the movement gather together to discuss the current situation. At spontaneous rallies, speeches are made, speakers are put forward who are better than others at articulating the problems that concern everyone, agitators and, finally, leaders with ideological organizational talent who outline the strategy and goals of the struggle and turn the masses of the dissatisfied into an effective social movement. The excitement stage is very dynamic and quickly ends either with active actions or with people losing all interest in this movement.

A social movement that attempts to bring about fundamental change in society is usually organized in some way. If the enthusiasm of the excited masses is not ordered and directed towards achieving certain goals, spontaneous street riots begin. The behavior of an excited crowd is unpredictable and results in destruction: people set fire to cars, overturn buses, throw stones at police, and shout threats. This is how football fans sometimes behave, provoking their opponents. In this case, the excitement usually passes quickly and there can be no talk of any organized and time-consuming movement.

On formalization stage the movement takes shape (structuring, registration, etc.), ideologists appear to provide its theoretical justification and formulate clear and precise goals and objectives. Through agitators, the population is explained the reasons for the current situation and the prospects of the movement itself. At this stage, the excited masses turn into disciplined representatives of the movement, who have a more or less real goal.

On stage of institutionalization the social movement is given completeness and certainty. The movement develops certain cultural patterns with a developed ideology, management structure, and its own symbols.

Social movements that have achieved their goals, such as gaining access to state power, turn into social institutions or organizations. Many movements fall apart under the influence of external conditions and internal weaknesses.

Reasons for the emergence of social movements

Why does one society experience social movements, revolutionary activity, and unrest, while another society lives without significant upheaval and conflict, although there are also rich and poor, rulers and ruled? Apparently, there is no clear answer to this question, since many factors are at work, including civilizational ones.

In economically developed, democratically structured societies, the majority of the population feels a sense of relative security and stability, is indifferent to changes in public life, and does not want to join radical social movements, support them, much less participate in them.

Elements of social disorganization and a state of anomie are more characteristic of changing, unstable societies.

If in traditional societies human needs are kept at a fairly low level, then with the development of civilization the freedom of the individual from traditions, collective mores and prejudices, the possibility of personal choice of activities and methods of action expands sharply, but at the same time a state of uncertainty arises, accompanied by the absence of firm life goals, norms and models behavior. This puts people in an ambivalent social position, weakens connections with a specific group and with the whole society, which leads to an increase in cases of deviant behavior. Anomie reaches particular severity in conditions of a free market, economic crises and unexpected changes in socio-political constant factors.

The American sociologist R. Merton noticed some basic socio-psychological traits in members of such unstable societies. In particular, they believe that those who govern the state are indifferent to the wishes and aspirations of its ordinary members. The average citizen feels that he cannot achieve his basic goals in a society that he sees as unpredictable and disorderly. He has a growing conviction that it is impossible to count on any social and psychological support from the institutions of a given society. A complex of feelings and motives of this kind can be considered a modern version of anomie.

In these cases, people have a mindset for social change. These attitudes become the basis for the formation of movements that cause counter-movements, identical in direction, but opposite in values. Movements and counter-movements always coexist where groups with different interests and goals are represented.

The most effective form of preventing the clash of social movements with opposing goals is to eliminate its causes at different levels.

At the general social level, we are talking about identifying and eliminating economic, social and political factors that disorganize public and state life. Distortions in the economy, gaps in the level and quality of life of large groups and segments of the population, political instability, disorganization and ineffectiveness of the management system are a constant source of large and small, internal and external conflicts. To prevent the emergence of radical movements, it is necessary to consistently pursue social, economic, and cultural policies in the interests of the entire society, strengthen law and order and legality, and help improve the spiritual culture of people. These measures are a general “prevention” of any socially negative phenomena in society, including conflict situations. Restoring and strengthening the rule of law, eliminating the “subculture of violence” characteristic of many segments of the population, everything that can help maintain normal business relations between people, strengthen their mutual trust and respect, prevents the emergence of radical and extremist movements, and if they have already formed, contributes softening their positions to a level acceptable to society.

Thus, social movements can be defined as a set of protest actions aimed at supporting social change, “a collective attempt to implement common interests or to achieve a common goal through collective action outside the framework of established institutions” (E. Giddens). Expressive, utopian, revolutionary and reform social movements played an important role in the development of society. Practice shows that, having achieved their goal, social movements cease to exist as movements proper and are transformed into institutions and organizations.