Civil Concepts in the Socio-Political Thought of Russia in the Period of the 17th - 19th Centuries. Social thought Socio-political thought of the 17th century
Department of Political Science
Abstract on the topic:
"The History of the Development of Political Thought in Russia"
Performed:
student gr. 4041z
Irina
Checked:
Velikiy Novgorod
1. Introduction 3
2. The origin and development of religious and ethical political doctrines in Russia 3
3. Civic concepts in the social and political thought of Russia in the period of the 17th – 19th centuries 6
4. Political thought of the period of the new and recent history in Russia 16
5. Conclusion 19
6. References 21
Introduction.
The beginning of the development of socio-political thought in Russia, accessible for study by modern historians and political scientists, should be calculated from Kievan Rus during the period of its Christianization. Since that time, it can be considered as an original formation of philosophical thought and associated with Russian original culture.
From the 11th to the 20th century, the main historical forms of socio-political thought can be associated with five fairly pronounced and relatively independent stages in the development of Russian culture. The first is the period of the 11th - 17th centuries, corresponding to the Middle Ages, traditionally singled out in the history of Western European culture. It can be divided into Old Russian (the culture of Kievan Rus) and Medieval Russian (the culture of the Moscow state).
The second stage covers the end of the 17th - the first quarter of the 19th century. The beginning of this stage is marked reform activities Peter I and the end - the uprising of the Decembrists.
The third stage - from the second quarter of the 19th century to 1917. At the beginning, it is marked by the birth of Russian classical culture, the pinnacle of which was A.S. Pushkin. At this time, national self-consciousness develops with extraordinary force, putting at the forefront the main theme - the theme of the specificity of Russian culture, as well as the special mission and fate of the Russian beginning in world history, the special significance of Russia in resolving the eternal conflict between the East and the West.
The fourth stage in history is limited to the 1917-1990s. This is the era of socialist construction, the practical verification of the Marxist-Leninist ideology, materialist views on history, politics and Soviet statehood.
The fifth stage - from 1991 to the present day. This stage is associated, first of all, with the return to liberal views and their resolute rejection by supporters of the socialist path of development, who went into opposition to the established political (so-called democratic) regime, established as a result of the well-known events of 1991, the assessment of which in the circles of our intelligentsia, yes and among the people as a whole, very, very ambiguous.
It should be noted that there is no periodization of the history of the development of socio-political thought in Russia that has been established in political science literature. There are different points of view on this issue. I adhered to the periodization presented above, within which the topic of the abstract is illuminated by semantic blocks.
The origin and development of religious and ethical
political doctrines in Russia.
The presentation of social and political thought in Russia, which is subject to modern study, correlates with the name of the Kyiv Metropolitan Hilarion (XI century). He wrote the "Word of Law and Grace" (1049), where he outlined the theological and historical concept that substantiated the inclusion of the Russian land in the global process of the triumph of divine light (in other words, Christ) over the darkness of paganism. Illarion considers the historical process as a change in the principles of religion. At the heart of the Old Testament is the principle of law. The basis of the New Testament is the principle of grace, which for the author is synonymous with truth. The law, according to Hilarion, is only a shadow of truth, a servant and forerunner of grace. The Old Testament prohibitions, according to Illarion, are insufficient. Morality is the problem of a free man; a person should freely do good, which is the nature of the central idea of the teachings of Hilarion.
A unique monument to the history of political thought in Russia of this period is the Tale of Bygone Years, a chronicle written in 1113. Its main idea is the idea of the unity of the Russian land. One of the first Russian literary works, The Tale of Igor's Campaign, is full of the same ideas.
Medieval socio-political thought is characterized by the fact that an in-depth study of human spiritual nature begins and a humanistic idea is formed of a person as the “image and likeness” of God, called upon by his work and behavior to maintain harmony and order in the world. This concept corresponded to the historical need for the creation of a centralized Moscow state, the strengthening of autocracy, and the struggle against the reactionary political positions of the boyars. It is reflected in a number of works of political literature: "The Tale of the Florentine Cathedral", "The Message of Monomakh's Crown", etc. These works were connected by the general idea of the greatness of the power of the Moscow sovereigns, justified the adoption by Tsar Ivan III of the title "autocrat of All Russia", and then in 1485 - the title "Sovereign of All Russia".
This idea found further improvement and development in the theory “Moscow is the third Rome”, put forward by the Pskov monk Philotheus at the beginning of the century, during a period of acute struggle between adherents of centralized royal power - “non-possessors”, and opponents of the idea of \u200b\u200blimiting the power of the church in the state - “Josephites” .
According to this theory, the history of mankind is the history of the rule of three great world states, whose fate was directed by the will of God. The first of these was Rome, which fell from paganism. The second state - Byzantium - was conquered by the Turks because of the Greek Catholic Union of 1439, concluded at the Council of Florence. After that, Moscow became the Third Rome - the true guardian of Orthodoxy. She will be them until the end of the world, ordained by God - "and there will not be a fourth." The Moscow sovereign - "high throne", "all-powerful", "God's chosen" - is the heir to the power of great states.
Under Ivan the Terrible, the idea of "Moscow - the third Rome" became the basis of all social theories, political orientations and religious aspirations of the Muscovite state. Ivan the Terrible used it to establish the unlimited power of the monarch and to combat the influence of the church on secular power. Under him, the church becomes increasingly dependent on the state. In 1559, Metropolitan Filaret was martyred from the oprichnina. His denunciation of Ivan the Terrible was almost the last nationwide denunciation of the state by the church. After Filaret, the church is silent for a long time.
Along with Filaret's ideas are the statements of Ivan the Terrible's political opponent, Prince Andrei Kurbsky, who called on the boyars and the people to fight the oprichnina. “Where are the faces of the prophets who denounced the lies of the kings? Who will defend the offended brethren? - Addressed Prince Kurbsky, who criticized the tyranny of Ivan IV, primarily the church, but she gradually weaned herself from giving answers to such questions.
Of great importance in the development of political thought in Russia is the Code of 1649, adopted in the reign of Alexei Mikhailovich, the second autocrat from the Romanov dynasty. First, it legalized serfdom by turning peasants into slaves. The Code of 1649 strengthened the union of the monarch and the middle service nobility, which was the basis of the emerging absolutism. Secondly, a strong blow was dealt to the political and economic power of the church, since the "Code" freed the state from the control of the church in the sense and to the extent that it existed before.
The code of 1649 was directed both against the top and against the lower classes of society. In it, from a political and ethical point of view, the new order was substantiated by the fact that serfs should serve the nobles, the nobles - the tsar, the tsar - the Russian land.
At the same time, the formation of a bureaucratic state is taking place, a system of orders is being created as public authorities.
The “Table of Ranks” published under Alexei Mikhailovich (although it is believed that it was published by Peter on January 24, 1722) was intended to turn the entire population of the state, not in serfdom, into “service people”, that is, to put everyone under the control of the authorities , give everyone a rank and determine a place in the service hierarchy. Not a single person had to avoid "attribution", could not be free from the commands of the "Table of Ranks" and even think of his being outside of it. Thus, continuity between medieval Muscovy and Russia of the Romanov dynasty was ensured and maintained.
In the same period and in the near future, the so-called heretical movements spread in Russia, in which they embodied opposition to feudalism, the struggle of the masses against feudal exploitation in Russia, which had a religious coloring.
Heretics, denying the main tenets of religion about the divine origin of Christ, demanded in their program speeches and statements - "heresies" - the abolition of the church's right to take bribes for rituals, condemned the construction of expensive churches, the worship of icons, the accumulation of wealth by the church. Some heretics went further, condemning wealth and property inequality in general, preaching an ascetic way of life.
At the turn of the 17th and 18th centuries, the Russian feudal state finally took shape as an absolute monarchy. The reforms of Peter I completed the elimination of old feudal institutions, marked the beginning of overcoming the industrial, military and cultural backwardness of the country.
The abrupt breaking of a number of age-old foundations, the restructuring of traditional relations, a sharp turn in spiritual life gave birth to new socio-political views. What was new was that they found their expression in the legislative acts of the absolutist state, in countless decrees, regulations, charters, manifestos, many of which were written by Peter himself or edited by him. The main ideas of these legal provisions were the sovereign's concern for the common good of people, the interpretation of the sovereign's power as supra-legal and unlimited.
These ideas received a deeper theoretical justification in the works of F. Prokopovich and V. Tatishchev.
According to Prokopovich, the origin of the state is preceded by a natural state in which people are more terrible than predators and are capable of killing their own kind for any reason. Therefore, people are forced to first form a "civil union", and then agree to the supreme power. He sharply criticizes the aristocracy and democracy, advocates an unlimited monarchy. According to his views, the subjects should "without contradiction and murmuring, everything from the autocrat is commanded to do."
VN Tatishchev, like other representatives of natural law, distinguishes between natural and civil (positive) laws. If natural laws determine what is "right and not right", then politics judges what is useful and what is harmful. Natural law talks about the individual, and politics talks about society as a whole.
"By nature," argues V. Tatishchev, a person is a free creature, but "reckless self-will is wrecking." For the benefit of a person, it is necessary to impose a “bridle of bondage” on him. Tatishchev distinguishes between “a bridle by nature” (the need to obey parents), “a bridle of one’s own free will” (by contract - the bondage of a servant, a serf), “a bridle by compulsion” (when someone is captured and will be kept in slavery).
The theoretical stumbling block for Tatishchev was serfdom. Slavery and slavery (the third type of bridle) he recognized as unnatural, contrary to human nature, and he considered the strengthening of serfdom a mistake by B. Godunov. But having condemned serfdom in theory, history, and partly in practice, Tatishchev put forward a number of arguments against its abolition: 1) it would give rise to "confusion, deceit, strife and resentment" and therefore dangerous, "so as not to bring more harm"; 2) without the guardianship and guidance of an enlightened and wise landowner, a lazy and ignorant peasant will inevitably perish: “if he had his way, death.”
The political and legal teachings of Prokopovich and Tatishchev, despite their noble orientation, had a positive significance for their time. They defended the progressive reforms of Peter the Great and opposed the reactionary feudal lords. The political views of V. Tatishchev were almost completely freed from the religious element and became secular.
Enlightenment and liberal ideas, noble and bourgeois liberalism were essential for the further development of political thought in Russia. Objective preconditions have ripened for their origin.
The development of industry, crafts and trade, accelerated by the reforms of Peter I, led to a significant relative growth in the class of industrialists and merchants, which formed into the bourgeoisie.
One of the first ideologists of the Russian bourgeoisie was T. T. Pososhkov (1665-1726). He himself was engaged in entrepreneurship and trade, wrote several works, including The Book of Poverty and Wealth (1724). In it, he outlined the program of action of absolutism, as the merchants wanted to see it.
Pososhkov was a supporter of the total state regulation of production, labor, many aspects of life for the sake of one goal - to increase social wealth. Pososhkov proposed to clearly define the rights of each estate and its obligations to the state. The nobles must be in the military or civil service, they must be forbidden to own factories and plants. The clergy must refrain from industrial activities. Only merchants should be engaged in commercial and industrial activities, including foreign trade.
He proposed to regard the peasants as belonging not to the landowners, but to the sovereign, to distinguish between peasant and landowner lands. Pososhkov sees all the troubles of the country in the imperfection of legislation, law, legal proceedings and administration. He attached particular importance to the reform of the court: the court, in his opinion, should become accessible to every class. "The court is one to arrange, what is the farmer, such is the merchant's person and the rich." Pososhkov was the first ideologist of the Russian bourgeoisie, who expressed its interests with all its inherent features: loyalty, hope for tsarist help, readiness to put up with the feudal system and adapt to it, the dream of a somehow stable legal order, covering in some part the serf peasantry . Some of the theoretical positions put forward by Pososhkov painfully affected the interests of the nobility. Shortly after the publication and sending of the “Book of Poverty and Wealth” to Peter I, he was arrested and imprisoned on an “important secret state case” in the Peter and Paul Fortress, where he died.
In the second half of the 18th century, while maintaining the feudal-estate structure of society, nevertheless, the capitalist structure in Russia was being strengthened. This contributed to the aggravation of social and class contradictions. In 1762, as a result of another palace coup carried out by the noble guard, Catherine II ascended the Russian throne. Her reign is marked by the transition to the so-called "enlightened absolutism". The political and legal ideology of this period developed under the significant influence of the Enlightenment. Western Europe, especially France, as evidenced by the correspondence of Empress Catherine with Voltaire and D'Alembert, an invitation to Russia by Diderot, etc.
Catherine in every possible way condemned the "harm of the previous autocracy", while not stinting on promises "to establish good order and justice in her beloved fatherland." In 1767, by her decree, a Commission was created to draft a new Code, for which Catherine wrote an extensive “Instruction”, most of which reproduces phrases, ideas, texts of Western European enlighteners, mainly Montesquieu and Beccaria.
This work of the empress contained a number of provisions that were impossible in autocratic-feudal Russia, declarative in essence: equality of citizens; freedom as dependence only on the law; limitation of state power within limits defined by it, etc.
For Russia, this was a liberal, humanistic breakthrough. The "mandate" was supposed to testify to the "enlightenment" of the Russian monarch and contribute to Russia's joining the ranks of the leading civilized states. However, the ideas of the "Nakaz" were not destined to become law due to sharp strife in the created commission, which ceased its activities already in 1769, and the queen declared through the official journal: "As long as the laws are in time, we will live as our fathers lived."
The era of enlightened absolutism in Russia is characterized by a contradiction between word and deed, attempts to adopt advanced ideas for that time and the desire to strengthen feudal-serf institutions. A peculiar type of Voltairian serf appeared, knowing the novelties of Western enlightenment literature, sympathetically following the struggle of the United States, condemning the Negro trade, but irreconcilably hostile even to the idea of recognizing the human dignity of his serfs.
During this period, two directions in the development of the political thought of Russia took shape: the political and legal ideology of the feudal aristocracy, which sought to strengthen its position through a limited monarchy (the creation of an imperial council, the reform of the Senate, etc.) and the political and legal ideas of the emerging enlightenment and liberalism, directed against serfdom.
The most prominent ideologist of the well-born aristocracy was Prince M.M. Shcherbatov (1733-1790). He does not allow equality even among the nobility.
But Russia failed to resist the Western ideas of enlightenment. The most enlightened people of Russia became active preachers of these ideas: S.E. Desnitsky, N.G. Kurganov, N.I. Novikov, A.Ya. Polenov, I.A. Tretyakov, D.I. Fonvizin. They raised the question of the fate of the Russian peasantry, laid bare the flagrant abuses of the feudal landlords, showed the harm that serfdom does to the development of agriculture and industry. They advocated the abolition of serfdom and the limitation of the absolute power of the monarch. This they wanted to achieve peacefully, believing that enlightened public opinion could force the absolutist state to carry out appropriate reforms.
The pinnacle of progressive political thought in Russia is the second half of XVIII century were the views of A.N. Radishchev (1749-1802). In the book "Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow" he sharply criticizes serfdom and autocracy, proves that serfdom is contrary to natural law and social contract. Autocracy, in his opinion, is the most opposite state of human nature.
Radishchev resolutely rejected the idea of "unreasonable mob", ardently believed in the creative possibilities of the masses. He believes in revolution, but at the same time he remarks: “I see through a whole century!” For him, the revolution meant a profound restructuring of society and the state in the interests of the people. Important was his idea of the need to preserve the peasant community.
A.N. Radishchev entered the history of Russian political thought as the first Republican revolutionary. His views had a great influence on the political views of Pestel, Ryleev, and other Decembrists, who also defended republican ideas.
In the first half of the 19th century, the disintegration of the feudal system and the development of capitalist relations continued in Russia. Therefore, the policy of the autocracy also fluctuates from an openly reactionary course to concessions to liberalism.
The anti-feudal directions of political and legal thought were: liberalism (noble and bourgeois), the revolutionary ideology of the Decembrists, enlightenment, and from the beginning of the 40s - revolutionary democracy. The philosophical and political-legal ideas of M.V. Lomonosov, A.N. Radishchev remained the main ideological and theoretical source of advanced political thought and were further developed in it.
The most important representatives of the ideology of liberalism in this period were N.S. Mordvinov and M.M. Speransky.
N.S. Mordvinov (1754-1845) - one of the friends of Alexander I, attached particular importance to economic development countries. He stood for freedom entrepreneurial activity, proved the advantages of free-lance labor, arguing the idea that property rights can only apply to things, and "a person cannot be the property of a person." However, all this was combined with the abolition of serfdom only in the future.
Mordvinov proposed to transform the Senate into a parliamentary institution, consisting of the upper house of "nobles" elected for life and the lower house, elected by wealthy circles. But even such a moderate “representative” body was supposed to become a legislative advisory body under the tsar, and not a legislative parliament. This is how Mordvinov combined liberal ideas with the support of the existing order and the protection of the interests of the noble landowners affected by capitalist development. This is a characteristic feature of noble liberalism in general.
The drafts of constitutional reforms by M.M. Speransky (1772-1839), who came from a minor clergy who became a major official thanks to his outstanding abilities, were of a broader liberal nature. Speransky went from noble liberalism to the defense of an unlimited monarchy. Under his leadership, a complete collection of laws of the Russian Empire was prepared in 45 volumes, as well as a code of laws of Russia in 15 volumes.
On the instructions of Alexander I in 1809, he developed a detailed project of state reforms, which substantiated the need for reforms consistent with the spirit of the times. Speransky interpreted the system of separation of powers he proposed in his own way. Legislative, executive, and judicial powers appear to him as manifestations of a "single sovereign power." Because of this, the emperor is the "supreme legislator", "the supreme principle of the executive power", "the supreme guardian of justice".
For the first time, Speransky introduces differences between laws and normative acts - charters, regulations, instructions, etc., which determined the activities of administrative bodies. Thus, the question was raised about the by-law law-making activities of the executive apparatus and original additions were made to the theory of separation of powers.
The supreme body of judicial power is the Senate, appointed by the emperor from among the candidates recommended by provincial dumas. To eliminate various conflicts between the authorities, the general connection of all state affairs, the State Council is appointed by the emperor.
On the ground, provincial dumas are created, consisting of all estates that have property. Volost councils are granted the right to elect volost boards. In villages and hamlets, elders are elected (or appointed).
The further development of socio-political thought in Russia is associated with the Decembrist movement. From their uprising on December 14, 1825, V.I. Lenin dated the beginning of the liberation movement in Russia, distinguishing three stages in it: noble (1825-1861), raznochinsk (1861-1895) and proletarian (after 1895). He called the Decembrists and Herzen the most outstanding figures of the first stage. Lenin V.I. Complete Works. v. 25. p. 93
The Decembrists sympathized with the people and set themselves the task of freeing them from serfdom, but sought to carry out a revolutionary coup without the participation of the people themselves. This limitation also affected their reform programs.
In the political ideology of the Decembrists, two currents are distinguished: moderate and radical. The most prominent representative of the moderate direction was N.M. Muravyov (1795-1843) - the creator of the Decembrist constitution. In his views, he proceeded from the theory of natural law. He was a resolute opponent of serfdom. Instead of a class system, Muravyov's constitution introduced the equality of all before the law. He emphasized that the Russian people "is not and cannot be the property of any person and any family." The tsarist autocracy was called "the arbitrariness of one person", lawlessness. But at the same time, Muravyov is in favor of a constitutional monarchy, he believes that the emperor is the "highest official of the government" who is obliged to report to the People's Council - the highest representative body - on the state of the country.
The ideologist of the radical trend was P.I. Pestel (1793-1826) - cavalier of the Golden Sword "For Courage", who received it for participating in the Battle of Borodino, where he was seriously wounded, the author of the constitutional project called "Russian Truth", which he has been working on for many years. However, "Russkaya Pravda" includes not only the constitutional project, but also general political concepts: the state, the people, the government, their mutual rights and obligations, etc.
Like Muravyov, Pestel proclaimed private property sacred and inviolable. Eliminating the shortcomings identified in the socio-political order of the West, the author of Russkaya Pravda assigned to the agrarian project and the plan for organizing state power.
Unlike Muravyov, Pestel has a negative attitude towards the landless liberation of the peasants, calling it "imaginary liberty". He intended to transfer to the peasants half of the landlords', appanage and other lands.
Pestel's structure of government was based on the principle of separation of powers, but with many innovations: "The rule of balance of powers is rejected, but the rule of determining the scope of action is adopted." From this formula, the need for a clear definition of the competence of each body and the accountability of the executive bodies to the legislature was derived. Pestel criticized the lack of responsibility of the executive power on the examples of England and France.
Russkaya Pravda was a document of the social system in the form of a republic. And although the ideas of democracy, the collapse of the political domination of the rich were illusory for that time, they were progressive not only for feudal-absolutist Russia, but also for bourgeois Western countries.
The Decembrists contributed to the political and legal thought of their time a lot of value and originality. They, as it were, passed the baton from Radishchev to A.I. Herzen and the raznochintsy revolutionaries of the 60s.
The first open protest after December 14, 1825 in the conditions of the country crushed by the oppression of Nicholas I was the publication of P.Ya. exiled, and Chaadaev declared insane. The thinker bitterly notes the backwardness of Russia, writes that Russia, crushed by despotism and slavery, was unable to contribute to the development of mankind (later he admitted the exaggeration of this indictment). Knowing well the works of Western enlighteners (from 1823 to 1826 he lived abroad), Chaadaev pinned his hopes on the spread of education as the main method of transformation, and later added to it the religious education of young people.
Chaadaev's “Philosophical Letters” exacerbated ideological disputes among the noble intelligentsia, during which two political currents emerged in the 1940s: Slavophiles and Westerners. Slavophiles - K.S. Aksakov, I.V. Kireevsky, Yu.F. Samarin, A.S. Khomyakov and others opposed the rapprochement of Russia with Western Europe, which P. Chaadaev called for. They considered the communal beginning to be the main feature of Russia, criticized the transformations of Peter I. They proclaimed the unity of estates, adherence to Orthodoxy as the basis of the moral health of society and communal self-government as the primordial features of the Russian people. The Slavophiles were supporters of the preservation of the autocracy, opposed any forced changes, and denied the need for a Constitution.
Prominent representatives of the Westerners were P.V. Annenkov, B.N. Chicherin, K.D. Kavelin. They critically assessed the state and social system tsarist Russia, defended the need for its development along the Western European path. They resolutely opposed serfdom, but waited for reforms from the government.
A new period in the development of liberalism began in the context of the abolition of serfdom (1861), judicial and zemstvo reforms, and the democratization of universal education. At that time, liberalism in Russia developed in two directions: classical (B.N. Chicherin 1828-1904) and sociologized (P.I. Novgorodtsev 1866-1924).
Professor of law at Moscow University, student of Granovsky B.N. Chicherin was the most influential ideologue of liberalism in Russia late XIX century. He was a supporter of the rule of law, a constitutional monarchy, although he criticized the "short-sighted despotism" of Alexander I and Nicholas I. He developed the theory of the common history of Russia and Europe, argued the ideological premises of the commonness of their political principles. At the same time, he opposed social equality and helping the weak. Support for those in need is not a state matter, but a private matter, a matter of philanthropy. In order for everyone to have the same benefits, it is necessary to rob the rich, and this is not only a violation of justice, Chicherin believed, but also a perversion of the fundamental rules of human society. He noted that the drama of Russian political thought lies in the predominance of the extremes of radicalism and conservatism.
On the contrary, in P.I.Novgorodtsev’s idea of a rule of law state, the main point was the protection of the weak, those who were employed. A minimum of social rights is required, which are guaranteed by the state: the right to work, professional organization, social insurance.
Novgorodtsev came close to the idea of a social state. He sees the task and essence of law in the protection of personal freedom, for which, first of all, it is necessary to take care of the material conditions of freedom, because without this, freedom can turn out to be an empty sound, an unattainable good, legally enshrined, but actually taken away.
P. Novgorodtsev saw the solution to Russia's problems not in borrowing Western institutions, but in a creative approach to the process of evolution of autocracy, in the transition from autocracy to a state with a commodity economy and democratic institutions, with state control over the development of social relations.
The liberal thought of Russia has done big way from direct borrowing of Western ideas to the development of many original ideas for the state reorganization of Russia.
However, in general, liberal political thinking in Russia did not become all-encompassing, it had little influence, which was explained by the weakness of the principles of individualism in Russian culture and the economy, and the preservation of communalism in the management of the bulk of producers. The mass rejection of the ideas of liberalism in the post-Soviet period is explained not only by the positive aspects of the socialist era, but also by the factors mentioned above.
Along with liberalism, since the middle of the 19th century, a conservative tradition of the development of political thought has been firmly established in Russia. Among the conservatives were ideologists of a reactionary nature, who defended loyalty only to the past, and those for whom the appeal to the past, history served as an incentive to improve society on the basis of a certain stability, stability. The first group often includes N.M. Karamzin, S.S. Uvarov, K.P. Pobedonostsev, the second group - reformist late Slavophiles, authors of the Russian idea (N.Y. etc.). It is clear that such a division is highly arbitrary.
The desire to hold on to the present by strengthening the past was widespread. L. Tolstoy, for example, noted that Russia was overfed with reforms, it needed a diet. However, is it possible, according to this statement, to attribute the great writer to the reactionary wing of conservatism? In the post-Soviet era, after perestroika impulses and disappointments, the idea of the reasonableness of the limits of cosmopolitanism, Westernization, Tolstoy's idea of a "diet" has regained relevance, is used by Russian neo-conservatives, by no means reactionaries.
In Russia, conservatism acquired a specifically Russian ideology of Slavophilism. Its bearers were people whose names entered the history of Russia.
N.M. Karamzin (1766-1826) argued that the unlimited power of the monarch is most desirable for Russia, all the prosperity of the country was ensured by the unity of the tsar and the people. He regarded the landowners as trustees of the peasants. The universal postulates of conservatism: the danger of change, the historical necessity of the existence of the aristocracy as an intermediary between the government and the people, the stability of power - are understood by Karamzin sacredly, with sympathy for paternalism and statism.
Count S.S. Uvarov (1786-1855) - President Russian Academy Sciences, Minister of Education - formulated the essence of conservatism as a triad: Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality. He argued that the Russian people are religious, mystical, devoted to the tsar, they are characterized by loyalty to the autocracy.
The most reactionary conservatives include K.P. Pobedonostsev (1827-1905), who is blamed for the fact that Russia was a quarter of a century late with the introduction of a constitutional monarchy. He considered elections to be a process of accumulation of lies, "the lust of power", because through them power becomes the acquisition of ambitious people. Only a monarchy can resist the lies of elections. The essence of royal power is paternalism, the formation of society as a large family. The matter of power is the matter of self-sacrifice in the name of man's salvation. Power, order in the country are based on faith in God. Faith disappears - the state perishes.
At the same time, K.P. Pobedonostsev advocated "people's self-government", believed that self-government was organically connected with the spirituality of the Russian people, advocated "one and indivisible Russia." By the way, the idea of integrity and indivisibility was shared by radicals of different times. P. Pestel, for example, believed that only a unitary state was suitable for Russia.
Representatives of the second group of conservatives - the late Slavic-Nophiles, were critical of the existing system, advocated the abolition of serfdom, but opposed the borrowing of Western ideas. The main thing in their activity was not so much the solution of specific problems of the country, but the search for a common idea specific to Russia.
The late Slavophiles (they were also called “pochvenniki”, “pan-Slavists”), without denying the need for changes, believed that the European path was associated with great losses in culture, the loss of internal harmony, and spiritual integrity. L.N. Tolstoy, for example, was convinced that the path to happy life lies through a new religion, through moral perfection, through forgiveness, universal love (“non-resistance to evil by violence”).
Conservatism II half of XIX- the beginning of the 20th century, relying on Slavophile ideas, it becomes more theoretical, more closely connected with state policy.
N.Ya.Danilevsky (1822-1885) substantiates the idea of a cultural-historical type and notes that the culture of one historical type can penetrate into the culture of another type not completely, but only by separate elements. This idea was the methodological basis for the views of Vl. Solovyov (1853-1900), who is considered the father of the Russian idea. According to Solovyov, blessed is the people who realize the word of God better than others, who deserve greater indulgence from God. On this basis, an integral culture of humanity is being formed as a system of ascent to the God-man through Sophic-divine wisdom. Russia is the heir of Byzantium, and she has every reason to embody the kingdom of God. Russia is completely self-sufficient, possessing such "elements" as the church, autocracy, rural community, which can be the foundations of a strong state. In addition, in Russia there are "divine spokesmen" of the West ("Latinism" in the person of Catholic Poles) and the East ("basurmanism" in the person of non-Christian Jews). It is vitally important for Russia to reconcile with the main spiritual opponents, to unite the principles of Orthodoxy, Catholicism, and Judaism in a theocratic synthesis. Then Russia will become the greatest kingdom of the Earth.
A separate page in the history of political thought in Russia is the legal and political views of the revolutionary democrats.
The second half of the 19th century is characterized by the development of revolutionary democracy. Its representatives, A.I. They reject any exploitative system and combine revolutionary democracy with utopian socialism.
As applied to Russia, Herzen called his theory the theory of "Russian socialism". It was based on his ideas about the advantages of a rural community that has survived in Russia. Idealizing the community, Herzen regarded it as a ready-made cell of socialism, and the preservation of the community as a guarantee of the transition to socialism, bypassing capitalism. He considered the Russian peasant a born socialist.
Herzen's interpretation of the problem of the state is original. The origin of the state, like other thinkers, he explained in the spirit of contractual theory, derived from the need to maintain public security. However, Herzen already understood that states serve not the "common good", but the tasks of social oppression. In his opinion, "the state equally serves both the reaction and the revolution, to the one on whose side the power is." In the state he saw form without content. This is both the strength and the weakness of his views. Not seeing a certain content in the state, he appealed to the “tops”, hoped for reforms. On the other hand, such an approach made it possible to overcome the influence of Bakunin and see in the state a powerful means of protecting the revolution, carrying out profound social transformations. Envisioning socialism as a society without a state, Herzen at the same time did not demand its immediate liquidation, he denied "the imminent inevitability without state structure».
Herzen came close to understanding the essence of imaginary democracy. "The bourgeois state is an anonymous society of political cheats and stock traders." He stigmatizes the bloody role of the state during the revolution of 1848 and writes that in cruelty and ruthlessness of reprisals against the people, the bourgeois state surpassed even the feudal state with its fist rights.
Herzen angrily exposes bourgeois parliamentarism as well. Through bribery, threats, and other means of putting pressure on the voters, the bourgeoisie ensures the composition of the parliament it needs. Suffrage is one of the means of deceiving the masses.
Herzen distinguishes between two forms of organization of human society - a monarchy and a republic, while distinguishing between political and social republics. Political, i.e. bourgeois republic, is considered by him as external, not satisfying the interests of the majority of the people. But even such a republic is freer than a constitutional monarchy. It is a stage towards the liberation of the people, towards a social republic.
Herzen's contribution to the development of the national question is significant. He advocates the friendship of peoples, their joint struggle against social oppression. Herzen's main demand here is the right of nations to determine their own destiny, including the formation of an independent state. At the same time, he was convinced that after the revolution, the peoples inhabiting Russia would not want to separate, they would enter into a voluntarily and freely created union. He showed his views on the national question in support of the desire of the Polish people to free themselves from the yoke of Russia, he was entirely on the side of the Polish rebels in 1863, which saved the honor of Russian democracy.
VG Belinsky (1811-1848) already belonged to a new generation of activists of the liberation movement - the generation of revolutionary raznochintsy.
The main merit of Belinsky in the development of socio-political problems was the criticism of contemporary reality for him. In his "Letter to Gogol" he gave a stunning picture of Russia as a country where "people traffic in people" and "not only there are no guarantees for personality, honor and property, but there is not even a police order, but there are huge corporations of various services - nyh thieves and robbers. Woe to the state when it is in the hands of the capitalists,” wrote V. Belinsky.
The transition to socialism, which Belinsky called the "idea of ideas", "the being of being", "the alpha and omega of faith and knowledge", he connected, first of all, with the people's revolution. He ardently believed in the bright future of Russia and wrote that in a hundred years she would stand at the head of all mankind.
The main conclusion that N. Chernyshevsky, like other revolutionary democrats, made, was the conclusion about the need for a people's revolution and the transition to socialism. He, like Herzen, dreamed that Russia would pass the stage of capitalism, but, unlike Herzen, he did not consider the community to be a ready-made cell of socialism, he believed that communal agriculture should be supplemented by collective farming and that socialism would arise from the development of cooperation in industry. and agriculture. He considered industrial and agricultural partnerships to be a form of such cooperation.
In his views on the state and law, N.G. Chernyshevsky put forward a number of important provisions. He rightly believed that the state takes shape simultaneously with the emergence of private property, although he did not see that it arises in connection with the division of society into classes. He expressed the idea of the possibility of the withering away of the state, although he did not connect this possibility with the withering away of classes, but only with the complete satisfaction of the needs of the people. He gave a sharp criticism of bourgeois democracy, stating that in England "... the magnificent spectacle of parliamentary government almost always turns out to be pure comedy." He substantiated the need to establish a democratic republic with developed local self-government during the revolution, pointing out that a long transitional period was needed to carry out political and economic transformations.
AT national question N.G. Chernyshevsky unconditionally defended the principle of the supreme power of peoples to dispose of their own destiny. Every people has the right to secede from a state to which it does not want to belong. He considered the federation to be the most acceptable form of the state structure of a multinational state. "Whoever accepts federal thought, he finds the resolution of all confusion." Entry into a federation must be voluntary, and the federation itself can only be based on the equality of nations.
The work of N. Chernyshevsky was the pinnacle of revolutionary democracy in Russia. In the 1970s revolutionary democratism took the form of revolutionary populism.
V.I. Lenin rightly identifies three main features of populist views:
ü recognition of the originality of the Russian economic system, the peasant community, in particular, the consideration of communal production as higher than capitalism;
l recognition of capitalism in Russia as a decline, a regression;
- ignoring the connection of the intelligentsia with the material interests of certain social classes.
Russian political and legal ideology of the 17th century. - a phenomenon complex in content and diverse in the forms of its expression. These ideas reflected new trends in the development of Russian statehood that appeared during this period. They also expressed the ideas that were widespread in Russian society about the historical mission of Russia, about the essence of royal power, its relationship with church power. The main achievement of Russian political and legal consciousness in the 17th century. began to comprehend the events of the "Troubles" - a terrible catastrophe that befell Russian society and the state at the beginning of this century. This catastrophe was understood by Russian thinkers as God's punishment sent down on Russia for the sins of its rulers - as a punishment for betrayal by the ruling circles of the Russian society of Russians national interests. At the same time, the "Trouble" was perceived in Russian society as a clash between Russia and an external hostile force - Western Europe. "Trouble" became a serious test for Russian society and the state. Check real life During the Time of Troubles, the Russian official political and legal ideology also passed, and, in particular, the theory of Orthodox Christian autocracy formulated by Tsar Ivan IV. And what turned out
Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below
Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.
Hosted at http://www.allbest.ru/
political thoughtXVIIcentury. Political viewsG.Grozia, T.Hobbes, J.Locke
Introduction
In the 17th century in Western Europe began the revolutionary overthrow of the estate-feudal system. From the beginning of the revolution in England, the New Time is calculated - the period of history that replaced the Middle Ages. The social basis of the revolutions of the XVII century. there were townspeople (the growing bourgeoisie) and the peasantry oppressed by the feudal lords.
The classic embodiment of the new worldview was the theory of natural law . This theory began to take shape in the 17th century. and immediately became widespread. Its ideological origins go back to the works of early bourgeois thinkers, especially to their attempts to build a political and legal theory on the study of the nature and passions of man. The theory of natural law is based on the recognition of all people as equal (by nature) and endowed (by nature) with natural passions, aspirations, and reason. The laws of nature determine the prescriptions of natural law, to which positive (positive, volitional) law must comply. The anti-feudal character of the theory of natural law consisted already in the fact that all people were recognized as equal, and this (the natural equality of people) was raised to the obligatory principle of the positive, i.e. acting, right.
1. The emergence of the theory of natural law. Teachings of Grotius
The first major theorist of the natural law school was the Dutch scientist Hugo Grotius (1583-1645). The starting point of the teachings of Grotius is the nature of man, the social qualities of people. Grotius distinguishes between natural law and volitional law.
The source of natural law is the human mind, which contains the desire for a calm communication of a person with other people. On this basis, Grotius defines the prescriptions of natural law (requirements of reason), which include “both abstinence from someone else’s property, and the return of someone else’s thing received and compensation for the benefits derived from it, the obligation to keep promises, compensation for damage caused through our fault, as well as retribution to people deserved punishment.
Willed law (it is divided into human and divine) must comply with the prescriptions of natural law.
The original, pivotal category of his doctrine - the concept and content of justice and natural law - is revealed through those private law institutions, the embodiment of which in legislation was of paramount importance for the formation of civil society and for the developing bourgeoisie. “Society,” Grotius argued, “pursues the goal that the use of its property should be provided to everyone by common forces and with common consent.” Therefore, justice as a condition of community life "completely consists in refraining from encroaching on someone else's property."
Grotius' opposition of the requirements of natural law to the norms of law of the will, i.e. feudal legal institutions that existed in most countries, was a tool for criticizing feudal law and the feudal system as a whole. Grotius himself did not yet draw radical conclusions from the theory of natural law; but theoretical basis for such conclusions, made subsequently by the ideologists of the revolutionary bourgeoisie, were laid down by Grotius.
In the writings of Grotius, references to God and St. scripture; however, God in his doctrine is frankly subject to the laws of nature: “Natural law is so unshakable that it cannot be changed even by God himself ... Just as God cannot make two and two not equal four, so he cannot meaning to turn to good. Therefore, natural law must correspond not only to human, but also to divine volitional law (i.e., the prescriptions of religion).
According to Grotius, there was once a "state of nature" when there was neither state nor private property. The development of mankind, the loss of its original simplicity, the desire of people to communicate, their ability to be guided by reason, prompted them to conclude an agreement on the creation of a state.
The theory of the contractual origin of the state sharply opposed the feudal concepts of "god-established" power. “Initially, people united in a state not by divine command,” wrote Grotius, “but voluntarily, having experienced the impotence of individual scattered families against violence, from which civil power originates.”
Grotius defined the state as "a perfect union of free people, concluded for the sake of observing the law and the common good." The hallmark of the state is sovereignty, to the attributes of which Grotius attributed the issuance of laws (both religious and secular), justice, the appointment of officials and the management of their activities, the collection of taxes, issues of war and peace, the conclusion of international treaties.
2. Teaching T . Go bbsa
The theory of natural law was generally rejected by the supporters of the king, who invoked scripture ("there is no power but from God").
Among the defenders of absolutism during the revolution, the English materialist philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) occupied a very difficult position. He wrote a number of works; the main one is "Leviathan, or the matter, form and power of the state."
Hobbes built his teaching on the study of the nature and passions of man. Hobbes' opinion about these passions and nature is extremely pessimistic: people are characterized by rivalry (the desire for profit), distrust (the desire for security), love of glory (ambition). These passions make people enemies: “man is a wolf to man” ( homo homini lupus est). Therefore, in the state of nature, where there is no power to keep people in fear, they are in a "state of war of all against all" ( bellum omnia contra omnes).
The perniciousness of the "state of war of all against all" compels people to look for a way to end the state of nature; this path is indicated by natural laws, the prescriptions of reason (according to Hobbes, natural law is the freedom to do everything for self-preservation; natural law is the prohibition to do what is harmful to life).
Natural laws say that peace should be sought; to this end, all must mutually renounce the right to everything; "People must keep the agreements they make."
Renouncing natural rights (that is, the freedom to do everything for self-preservation), people transfer them to the state, the essence of which Hobbes defined as “a single person, responsible for the actions of which a huge number of people made themselves responsible by mutual agreement among themselves, so that this a person could use the strength and means of all of them as he deems necessary for their peace and common protection.
3. The concept of natural law J. Locke
Locke's concept of natural law summed up the previous development of the political and legal ideology in the field of methodology and content of the theory of natural law, and the program provisions of his doctrine contained the most important state and legal principles of civil society.
Like other theorists of the natural law school, Locke proceeds from the concept of the "state of nature." An important feature of Locke's teaching is that he substantiates the idea of human rights and freedoms that exist in the pre-state state. The state of nature, according to Locke, is "a state of complete freedom in relation to actions and disposal of one's property and person", "a state of equality in which every power and every right is mutual, no one has more than another."
Natural rights include property, which was interpreted broadly: as the right to one's own personality (individuality), to one's actions, to one's work and its results. It is labor, according to Locke, that separates “mine”, “yours” from common property; property is something inextricably linked with a person. The justification of private property was directed both against egalitarian theories (as long as people are not equal in diligence, abilities, thrift, property cannot be equal), and even more so against feudal arbitrariness, encroachments of the absolute monarchy on the property of subjects (arbitrary taxes, extortions, confiscations) .
In the state of nature, Locke argued, everyone is equal, free, has property (with the advent of money, it has become unequal); basically it is a state of peace and goodwill. The law of nature, argued Locke, prescribes peace and security. However, any law needs guarantees.
Natural laws, like any other, Locke argued, are provided with the punishment of those who break the law to the extent that it can prevent its violation. One of the most important guarantees of law and legality, Locke considered the inevitability of punishment. In the state of nature, these guarantees are not sufficiently reliable, for the indiscriminate use by each of his power to punish the transgressors of the law of nature either punishes excessively severely, or leaves the violation unpunished. In addition, there were disputes over the understanding and interpretation of the specific content of natural laws, for "the law of nature is not a written law and cannot be found anywhere except in the minds of people."
In order to create guarantees of natural rights and laws, Locke believed, people renounced the right to independently provide these rights and laws. As a result of social agreement, the state became the guarantor of natural rights and freedoms, having the right to issue laws with sanctions, use the forces of society to enforce these laws, and also manage relations with other states.
Since, according to Locke, the state was created to guarantee natural rights (liberty, equality, property) and laws (peace and security), it should not encroach on these rights, it should be organized so that natural rights are reliably guaranteed. The main danger to natural rights and laws comes from privileges, especially from the privileges of the bearers of power.
According to Locke's theory, absolute monarchy is one of the cases of the removal of the bearer of power from the power of laws. It contradicts the social contract already for the reason that the essence of the latter is in the establishment by people of an equal court and law for all, and there is no judge over the absolute monarch at all, he himself is a judge in his own affairs, which, of course, contradicts natural law and law.
The limits of the power of the state under all forms of government are the natural rights of subjects. The government cannot deprive any person of a part of his property without his consent.
Locke considered it legitimate and necessary for the people to revolt against the tyrannical power that encroaches on the natural rights and freedom of the people. But the main thing is that the organization of the power itself reliably guarantees rights and freedoms from arbitrariness and lawlessness. This is the origin of Locke's theory of the separation of powers, which reproduces a number of ideas from the period of the English Revolution.
The justification of natural rights, expressing the basic demands of the bourgeoisie in the field of law (freedom, equality, property), brought Locke the glory of the founder of liberalism; the study of the guarantees of these rights, their protection from the arbitrariness of power, the rationale for the separation of powers puts him in the forefront of theorists of parliamentarism; finally, the desire to limit the activities of the state to protective functions lays the foundation for the ideas of the rule of law. A number of Locke's ideas went far beyond justifying and defending only bourgeois interests. Already the concept of labor property provided logical justification for opposing views: from the apologetic view of any property as a “product of labor and frugality” to the radical demand that property rights be granted only to those who create and increase this property (the latter motive was later often heard in egalitarian and socialist theories). The theory of separation of powers developed by Locke is applicable to the rationale for protecting not only the bourgeois legal order, but civil society in general from the arbitrariness of any authoritarian power.
The humanistic content of Locke's political and legal doctrine is most of all expressed in the concept of natural human rights. This doctrine was subsequently criticized for the fact that Locke named few rights and did not raise the question of their material guarantees. However, in the XVII century. the most important thing was to achieve recognition of the natural rights of the individual, which had previously been denied and violated by the feudal-absolutist states. The concept of human rights to freedom, equality and property, created by Locke, independent of the state, developed and supplemented in subsequent centuries, when the list of “formal” rights and freedoms was significantly replenished with social rights and freedoms, which, however, are practically impossible without them, at least at first. and formal, but fundamental genetic basis.
4. The results of the development of law in the 17th century
The main result of the XVII century. in the ideology of Europe was the formation of the theory of natural law, which expressed the basic principles of civil society. In the theory of natural law, the ideas of the 16th century were developed. about the nature of man, his passions and reason as the basis and driving forces politicians. A significant achievement and basis of the theory of natural law of the XVII century. - the idea of universal natural equality of people. For the first time in centuries of history Humanity has put forward and widely substantiated the idea of the universal legal equality of people, regardless of their social status and origin. In this, the theory of natural law of modern times differed significantly from the ideas of the "law of nature" of ancient philosophers and political thinkers.
Unlike the Christian authors of the Middle Ages, who traditionally saw the “free will of people” as the source and cause of sin and evil in the world, theorists of natural law considered free will, guided by reason, to be the basis of community life, relations between people, each of which is free in actions, in choosing behavior and therefore must be held accountable for their actions.
The rationalistic approach to the state, attempts to use the categories of private law to explain the reasons for its emergence and existence introduced into the content of political and legal theories not only the main idea of the social contract, but also the category of the natural state, promising for the subsequent study of the pre-state history of mankind, as well as the problem of mutual rights. and obligations of the authorities and the people.
In the political and legal ideology of Western Europe in the 17th century, in essence, a model of civil society was formed and theoretically substantiated, the practical implementation of which took several centuries and is far from being completed on a human scale.
At the end of the XVII century. a list of natural human rights and freedoms was formulated and substantiated, which became classic for the next era. At the same time, the main ways of realizing these rights and freedoms in civil society were theoretically outlined. The development of the problem of protecting a person from state power led to the idea of a legal and democratic state, posing the question of material guarantees of rights and freedoms, protecting a person from hunger and poverty gave rise to the idea of a welfare state.
17th century was a huge step forward in the development of the doctrine of law and the state. In the process of overcoming the theological worldview, the dogmas of medieval scholasticism collapsed; rationalistically posed and solved the problems of the relationship between the individual, law and the state, discussed questions about the origin, tasks and functions of the state and law, about their role in public life. The view of a person with his needs, social qualities as the starting point of the teachings on law and the state led to a pronounced axiological aspect of the natural law doctrines of the 17th-18th centuries, an indisputable position on the value of the individual, on the subordination of law and the state to the earthly interests of people.
Stormy events of the XVII century. gave rise to a number of variants of the idea of overcoming political alienation. The starting point of most of these options was the theoretically rich, although moderate in terms of programmatic conclusions, the concept of Greece. Grotius was the first to substantiate the view of law as a human right, a reasonable right, without which there is no person at all.
From the pessimistic views of Hobbes on the nature of man, the fundamental alienation of the state from the people was logically derived. However, in his concept, not only the most seemingly anti-social passions of people were considered natural and logical, but also within the framework of the complete political alienation of the individual, dignity, freedom and equality in relations with their own kind were recognized for the latter. For the sake of this sufficiently substantive civil equality (by no means the equality of zeros, as in a despotic state!) and this political alienation itself was elevated to a principle. In essence, Hobbes describes a civil society protected by an authoritarian government (Stuarts or Cromwell). There are no contradictions in this theory, although state-legal practice often became contradictory, considering the arbitrary will of the sovereign as the source of law, but trying to prescribe the rules of natural laws to this will. Often, the sovereign's response to these attempts was deeds and judgments: "Better a drop of strength than a bag of rights." The desire to overcome such a purely practical contradiction is noticeable in the theory of Spinoza, who identified law and force, as well as in Locke's concept, according to which the freedom and equality of citizens are prescribed to the state by nature itself.
Locke identified the option of overcoming political alienation, which consists in replacing the traditional sovereign power of the state over society and the people with the sovereignty of law. As a necessary means of ensuring the rule of law, based on human rights given by nature, the weakening of the state itself (separation of powers) was justified. As a result, the state turned out to be subordinate to the unshakable principles of law, and the law itself, from the decrees of power, turned into a stable basis for a society of equal and free owners before the law.
Another option for overcoming political alienation was proposed by Spinoza: as soon as the state is generated by the contradiction between the passions and the mind of people, then the whole task is that both people and the state are led by reason. This is achieved by the democratic structure of the state, in which it actually merges with the people and, remaining a force isolated from society, embodying a reasonable general will, ceases to be alien and dangerous to society and the people.
In the process of revolutionary events in England, a revolutionary version of overcoming political alienation was also being developed. The Levellers and Diggers defended the idea of a revolutionary-democratic government, preparing the conditions for the maximum development of democracy on the basis of the institutions of Anglo-Saxon self-government and parliamentarism.
Listsources used
natural law political gotius
1. Vasilik M.A. Political science. M., 2004.
2. Gadzhiev K.S. Political science. Textbook. M., 1999.
3. History of political and legal doctrines: Textbook / Ed. Doctor of Law, Professor O.E. Leist. - M., 2002.
4. Korkunova, N.M. Lectures on the general theory of law. - M., 2003.
5. Lukasheva E.A. Human rights. - M., 2001.
6. Mukhaev R.T. Political science. M., 2002.
7. Nersesyanets V.S. Philosophy of Law: A Textbook for High Schools. - M., 2001.
8. Political science for lawyers. Course of lectures / Ed. N.I. Matuzova. M., 2002.
9. Radugin AA. Political science. M., 2003.
10. Sadovnikova G.D. Commentary on the Constitution of the Russian Federation, 2nd edition. - M., 2001.
11. Theory of State and Law: A Course of Lectures / Ed. N.I. Matuzova and A.V. Malko. - M., 2003.
Hosted on Allbest.ru
...Similar Documents
Political thought of the 17th century. The main political views of the era of the emergence of capitalist society. Political ideas of D. Locke, Georg Hegel. Political concepts of the classics of German philosophy. Ideas about civil rights T. Payne, T. Jefferson.
test, added 01/17/2012
Social, political and economic atmosphere of the 17th century. John Locke as the founder of liberalism. The doctrine of the origin and essence of the state. The problem of the relationship between law and law. Locke's political ideal. The concept of representative government.
term paper, added 11/16/2014
The political theory of Hobbes and the acceptability of his political concepts for Russia. The main points of the political concept of Hobbes. The origin of the state, the secularization of power, the form of government and the separation of powers. Reasons for preferring the monarchy.
abstract, added 11/28/2010
The influence of class clashes in civil war to the teachings of Hobbes. The unlimited power of the ruler of the state in the concept of Hobbes. Views on the origin of private property. The combination of the unlimited power of the sovereign and the civil rights of subjects.
abstract, added 08/25/2016
Early bourgeois legal doctrines of Western Europe. The theory of natural law. The doctrine of G. Grotius about law and the state. Political and legal doctrine of Spinoza. The main directions of political and legal ideology during the period of the English bourgeois revolution.
test, added 10/28/2010
D. Locke's doctrine of the state and law as a classic expression of the ideology of early bourgeois revolutions. Political and legal views of Sh.L. Montexier in his work "On the Spirit of Laws", as well as the influence on the development of the theory and practice of legal statehood.
report, added 12/01/2009
Features of the political theories of modern times. The idea of separation of powers by J. Locke. Views on the state S. Montesquieu. The essence of the separation of powers, the importance of each branch of power in the exercise of power. The specifics of the separation of powers in the Russian Federation.
abstract, added 01/19/2012
Brief biography, features of the personal and ideological formation of the great representatives of the political thought of the Renaissance and bourgeois revolution Thomas More and John Locke. Analysis of essays and works, description of the forms and characteristics of the state in them.
presentation, added 10/18/2013
Problems social inequality. The idea of the social contract of T. Hobbes. Theoretical analysis of the main political and legal doctrines of bourgeois society. The idea of state structure D. Locke. Ideas about popular sovereignty and general will J. Rousseau.
test, added 07/12/2015
Political thought of the East. political ideas Ancient Greece and Rome. Political thought of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Political doctrines of modern times. Sociology of political thought. The essence and content of the policy. The concept of "political elite".
Stormy events at the beginning of the 17th century. called for active participation in the political struggle of the masses of the people, various social strata, led to shifts in public consciousness, shook the previously established political and social theories. Understanding events in general, comparing political theories and practices, bringing them into line with historical reality and accumulated experience - all this influenced the development of Russian social thought in the first half of the century.
Constant appeal to the events of the beginning of the XVII century. to put forward certain political ideas and prove them - a characteristic feature of the journalism of this time. Therefore, certain views found expression precisely in the form of historical writings about "distemper" and manifested themselves in the selection of certain facts and in their interpretation, explaining their causes, in assessing the positions of various social and political groups and figures. Such works included "The Tale, for the sake of sin ...", "Vremennik" by deacon Ivan Timofeev, "The Tale" of the cellar of the Trinity-Sergeev Monastery Avraamy Palitsyn, "Another Tale", "The Tale of the Book of Sowing from Former Years" (attributed to Prince I .M-Katyrev-Rostovsky), the composition of Prince Ivan Khvorostinin "Words of Days and Tsars ...", "New Chronicler", reflecting the official political ideology of the autocracy, etc.
One of the important political lessons learned by the ruling class was the recognition of the need for a strong government in the country. In connection with this, the question arose about its nature, about the role and place in the political system of the state of various strata of society. These problems were in the center of attention of I. Timofeev. His political ideal is close to the political ideal of Prince A.M. Kurbsky. He defended the ideas of the inviolability of the feudal hierarchical ladder, the claims of the princely-boyar aristocracies to a special position in the state, to co-government with the tsar and its right to resist the royal power if it violates the principle of "place". This concept has not been developed in official journalism.
The political practice of the "Time of Troubles", the strengthening of the role of the nobility and tenants in solving vital issues contributed to the emergence of such a concept as "the whole earth". The right of representatives of the "land" to participate in the government of the state was substantiated. The need was put forward to elect one or another ruler "of the whole earth", i.e. Zemsky Sobor as one of the criteria for the legitimacy of power. Alalitsyn spoke in this spirit, explaining the unanimous election of Mikhail Romanov to the throne by the fact that this thought was instilled in people by God, that is, the will of the people was an expression of the will of God. It was this religious-political formula that was adopted by the official political ideology and reflected in the New Chronicler. The theoretical substantiation in the journalism of that time of the principles of a class-representative monarchy was a consequence of the active role played in the socio-political life of the country by the zemstvo sobors in the first decades after the "troubles".
social thought in the early 17th century. occupied the problems of the relationship of class and national interests, the theme of patriotism and the national liberation struggle. And here the lessons of "distemper" were not in vain. Reflecting on the question of which danger is more terrible for the feudal state - the uprising of "slaves" or foreign intervention, I. Timofeev comes to the conclusion that the masters have the right to cruel reprisals against the rebellious slaves, but only if the state is not threatened by external danger. Both I. Timofeev and A. Palipyn sharply condemned those representatives of their class who, in fear of the popular movement, colluded with the interventionists. Palitsyn's "Tale" is a work of high patriotic sounding, reflecting the rise of national consciousness and the enormous role of the masses in the struggle against the interventionists, which even the publicists of the feudal camp could not deny. This explains why the Tale has become the most popular historical work on the "troubles".
The thoughts and views of the oppressed masses on the events of the beginning of the century are expressed in two so-called Pskov stories, which came out of the bosad population. Both of them are imbued with anti-feudal sentiments, an anti-boyar tendency, all the disasters experienced by Russia are considered in them as the result of boyar violence, intrigues, and betrayals. The peasant war is explained by social causes - the "violence" of the feudal lords over the people, for which they "were ruined by their slaves." These "townsman" stories are devoid of church-religious reasoning and are purely secular in nature.
The documents that came out of the rebellious peasants during the peasant wars of the 17th century, in the specific actions of their participants, clearly reflected the anti-feudal orientation of these movements, a spontaneous protest against feudal oppression. But the peasantry did not have a clear program of social restructuring, no clearly expressed positive ideal. His daily life interests remained at the level of everyday consciousness, manifested in naive monarchism - in their belief in a "good" king.
Such illusions were supported by official ideology, which put forward and substantiated the thesis of the supra-class essence of autocracy. theoretical justification for absolutism.
In the political system of Russia in the second half of the XVII century. the tendency to absolutism was clearly marked; the substantiation of his principles is associated with the names of Simeon Polotsky and Yuri Krizhanich.
Yuri Krimsanich, a Croat by origin, arrived in Moscow in 1659. Two years later, on suspicion of activities in favor of the Catholic Church, he was exiled to Tobolsk, where he lived for 15 years and wrote his main work "Dumas are political" ("Politics"). In it, he put forward a broad and detailed program of internal transformations in Russia as necessary condition its further development and prosperity. The socio-political views of S. Polotsky found expression mainly in his numerous poetic works. Polotsky quite definitely spoke out for the need to concentrate this fullness of power in the hands of one ruler - the tsar. Yu. Krizhanich also spoke out for "self-rule" (unrestricted monarchy) as the best form of government. Only such a power, in his opinion, can ensure the solution of the most important tasks of foreign policy and "quench" all sorts of "revolts" in the kingdom, establish "eternal peace" in it.
Arguments of a religious nature continued to remain in the system of evidence, but the idea of "the common good", "universal justice" is gradually coming to the fore. The idea of the welfare of all subjects as the main goal of autocratic rule permeated the works of Y. Krizhanich and S. Polotsky. This idea received concrete expression in the call for the establishment of justice, the "equal trial" of the monarch over all subjects. This idea of an “equal court” is connected with the struggle of absolutism, based on broad layers of the nobility, for fullness of power against the aristocratic claims of the princely-boyar nobility. In this sense, S. Polotsky’s denial of the principle of nobility and generosity should be considered. The value of a person, in his opinion, is determined not by origin, but by his moral qualities, knowledge, and merits in labor for the "common good." Y. Krizhanich also criticized the old notions of nobility and generosity, maliciously ridiculing the arrogance and arrogance of the feudal nobility and highlighting the personal merits and abilities of a person.
Y. Krizhanich and S. Poltsky recognized the legitimacy and "justice" of the exploitation of the common people. But proceeding from the idea of the "common good", preaching social world and the general welfare, they called for its mitigation. Here, the influences of the "rebellious" time, the aggravation of social contradictions, the fear of the ruling classes before the "stupidity of black people" had an effect, i.e. before popular uprisings. The need to mitigate oppression was justified by them and by economic expediency.
S. Polotsky and Y. Krizhanich understood that the unlimited power of the monarch in itself does not guarantee order in the state, its prosperity and general well-being. It can easily develop into "tyranny" (or "ludodom", in the terminology of Y. Krizhanich). Everything depends on the personality of the sovereign, his moral qualities and "wisdom". The ideal image of the "enlightened" monarch is drawn in his poetic teachings intended for the king and his family, S. Polotsky, laying the foundations for the doctrine of "enlightened absolutism" - one of the most important trends in socio-political thought of the XVIII century. Anticipating the ideas of the "enlighteners", S. Polotsky considered the dissemination of enlightenment to be the most important means of correcting morals, eliminating vices in society, eliminating national troubles and internal turmoil.
The growth of cities, the development of commodity-money relations and trade, the growing role of the merchants put forward a number of new problems for Russian public thought related to the economic life of the country. Many statesmen, such as, for example, B.I. Morozov, F.M. Rtishchev, A.L. Ordin-Nashchokin, A.S. Matveev, V.V. Golitsyn came to the conclusion about the importance of developing trade and industry to strengthen the state and ensure national independence. They were the authors of reform projects that affected the economy as well.
Y. Krizhanich put forward a wide program of measures aimed at encouraging the development of handicrafts and trade. Its main points coincided with the program of one of the prominent politicians of this time, A. Ordina-Nashchokin, whose views were expressed in the Pskov city reform carried out in 1665 on his initiative and in the New Trade Charter of 1667, drawn up under his leadership and with his direct participation.
A.L. Ordin-Nashchokin sought to carry out a number of activities aimed at supporting the merchants and contributing to the development of trade. As governor in Pskov, he tried to carry out a reform of city government there, the meaning of which was to limit the power of governors and transfer part of their administrative and judicial functions to a self-government body elected from among the "best" townspeople. In order to promote private entrepreneurship, it was necessary, he believed, to set up credit institutions. Of course, for him the interests were always not of the merchants, but of the feudal-absolutist state: the development of trade and industry is one of the most important means of strengthening this state, like all feudal - fortress building. But objectively, Ordin-Nashchokin's program was aimed at overcoming the country's backwardness and was in line with Russia's national interests.
Russian social thought in the 17th century, especially in its second half, put forward a number of important ideas that were further developed in the next century. The foundations of the political ideology of absolutism were laid, the need for reforms was realized, their program and ways of implementation were outlined.
A characteristic feature of everyday life is its conservatism: a person hardly parted with habits passed down from generation to generation, moral principles and rituals that had developed over the centuries, as well as ideas about moral values. That is why in the XVII century. basically continued to live on Domostroy.
The most important feature of feudal life is that the equipment of a person, the architecture of the dwelling and its interior decoration, household utensils, food and much more were directly dependent on the estate of a person. Only a boyar could wear a throaty hat and a sable fur coat, while the peasant had to be content with a zipun made of coarse home-made cloth or a sheepskin jacket and an equally inexpensive headdress - a felt hat in summer and a cloth, padded sheepskin - in winter. The table of the boyar in richness and variety of dishes differed from the peasant's to the same extent as the boyar's estate from the peasant's hut. This dependence of life on class affiliation was noticed by the observant Kotoshikhin: “And in their houses they live against togh”, who has what honor and rank.”
At the same time, in everyday life there are some common features due to the commonality of the social, economic and political environment in which people lived. Deep social differences between the boyar and the peasant did not rule out the fact that both of them, in relation to the tsar, were not citizens, but serfs.
Serfdom deprived the peasants not only of personal freedom, it imperiously invaded property relations and family life, violated the inviolability of the hearth, trampled on the personal dignity of a person. The complete dependence of peasant life on the arbitrariness of the master, the rude interference of the landowner in the conclusion of marriage unions, the granting to the landowner of the right to inflict judgment and reprisal on the peasants for all cases of violation of the feudal legal order, except for cases related to murder, the right to torture the peasants had a huge impact on the formation of peasant psychology and notion of human dignity. But this same arbitrariness led to the accumulation of enmity and hatred, the readiness of the peasants to embark on the path of desperate spontaneous resistance, which was most clearly reflected in the peasant wars.
The feudal order and the autocratic system that prevailed in the country also influenced the nobility, creating a hierarchy of relations within it and developing in the representatives of the ruling class a sense of servile obsequiousness, humility and meekness towards persons who occupied a higher level in relation to them, and unpunished cruelty, rudeness and arrogance towards those who were below.
Another feature of feudal life was the isolation of people's lives. First of all, it was determined by the isolation of their economic activity: each peasant household was something isolated, capable of existing independently of other households. The natural character of the economy also allowed the master to get by with the fruits of peasant labor and not resort to the services of the market: carts with all sorts of food and products of peasant crafts stretched to the place of residence of the landowner.
The main place of communication in the countryside was the church: business conversations were held on the porch, issues of private and public life were discussed, such as, for example, the layout of duties, disputes of residents were sorted out and reconciled, etc.
The church was also a place where young people could see each other, so that later they could bind their destinies in marriage. Business conversations often took place in the church itself. Even Domostroy ordered to stand in the church in silence, not stepping from foot to foot and not leaning against a wall or pillar. In the 17th century the norms of behavior recommended by Domostroy were elevated to law.
There were much more places of communication in the city than in the countryside. In addition to churches, the townspeople used trading baths, markets, as well as the Order's hut, where the population was informed of such events as a declaration of war, the conclusion of peace, pestilence, etc., for contacts with each other.
Rural and urban residents used another means of communication - visiting relatives and friends. In the 17th century continued to adhere to the traditional ceremony of receiving guests and a separate feast for men and women. The way of life of feudal society is also characterized by such a feature, which stemmed from subsistence farming, as a patriarchal way of life. Patriarchal relations permeated the life of both a peasant or township family, and a boyar family. Her indispensable sign was unquestioning obedience to the will of the elder and the humiliated position of a woman. Most clearly, the patriarchal features of everyday life were manifested during the creation of a new family - when it arose, the main characters were not young people who were to live together, but their parents. It was they who performed the ceremony of matchmaking: the bride's parents collected information about the groom's reputation (that he was not a drunkard, not a lazy person, etc.), and the groom's parents diligently studied the list of what the bride would receive as a dowry. If the result satisfied both parties, then the second stage of the ceremony began - the bride's bride.
The bridegroom was also performed without the participation of the groom - on his behalf, the mother, sisters, relatives, or those "whom he, the groom, himself believes" acted as lookers. The purpose of the bride was to establish the absence of mental and physical defects in the bride. The positive outcome of the bride gave grounds for talking about the decisive procedure - determining the time of the wedding and wedding celebrations. The terms were fixed by a document that indicated the amount of the penalty if one of the parties refuses the terms of the contract.
Finally, the day of the wedding arrived. The bride walked down the aisle wrapped in a veil. Only during the wedding feast was the bride “opened”, and the husband could see his wife. Sometimes it happened that the spouse turned out to be defective: blind, deaf, mentally handicapped, etc. This happened if during the bride show they showed not a bride with physical disabilities, but her healthy sister or even a girl from another family. The deceived husband could not fix things - the patriarch did not satisfy the petition for a divorce, for he was guided by the rule: "Do not marry without having truly checked." In this case, the husband could eventually achieve his goal by daily torturing his wife, demanding tonsure into a monastery. If a young woman stubbornly refused to move to a monastery cell, then her parents filed a petition with the patriarch complaining about the cruelty of her husband. A justified complaint could have a consequence - the monster was assigned to a monastery for repentance for a period of six months or a year. Divorce was granted only after the husband, who returned from repentance, continued torturing his wife.
Although Kotoshikhin wrote that “in the same way, wedding conspiracies and rites between merchants and peasants happen against the same custom in everything,” but it was unlikely that in peasant and townsman families it was possible to show during the show of fake brides - in these families they did not lead a reclusive life. The marriages of serfs differed even more from the described rite. Here the decisive word belonged not to the parents, but to the landowner or his clerks. The clerk A. I. Bezobrazov compiled lists of brides and grooms, formed marriage couples and himself acted as a matchmaker. If, however, the greed of the clerk was duly satisfied by the offerings of interested parents, he could go along with their desires. Marriages were subject to the approval of the master, their conclusion without his sanction could cause punishment for those who entered into marriage.
The duty of children to unquestioningly obey the will of their parents in the 17th century. acquired the force of law: the Code of 1649 forbade a son or daughter to complain about his father or mother, petitioners were punished with a whip. The Code established a different punishment for the same crime committed by a husband and wife: a man-killer was expected to be buried up to his neck in the ground and a painful death, and the Code did not provide for reprisals against the husband, in practice they were limited to repentance.
The long-established division of labor between its male and female halves continued to exist in the family. The most difficult agricultural work (plowing, harrowing, sowing, etc.) fell to the lot of men, as well as caring for draft animals, logging, hunting and fishing. Women participated in the harvest, haymaking, gardening, caring for livestock, cooking, sewing clothes, spinning and weaving. The women were in charge of the children.
Some common features in clothing and housing can be traced in all strata of feudal society. Clothing, especially underwear, was the same for a peasant and a boyar: men wore ports and a loose shirt. The caftan and zipun of a wealthy person differed from the clothes of a peasant and a townsman only in the material from which they are made, as well as in the craftsmanship. Overseas cloth and brocade were used for the boyar caftan, while the peasants sewed it from homespun cloth. The fur clothes of the peasant and the townsman were made from sheepskins, and the fur coat of a wealthy person was made from expensive furs: sable, marten, ermine. An expensive fur coat distinguished a commoner from a boyar, so the latter, expiring with sweat, did not part with it even on hot summer days. Making clothes in a peasant and townsman family was the concern of women. The clothes of the boyars and rich people were sewn by trained master tailors. The same applies to shoes. Bast shoes in the 17th century have not yet become the universal footwear of the peasants. They also wore boots, which differed from the boyars in that they were made not from imported leather, which was thinner and more elastic, but from coarse rawhide.
The dwellings and outbuildings of the vast majority of noble estates also had a lot in common with the peasant court - in the 17th century. did not yet know luxurious palaces. The hut of a peasant and townsman, like the dwelling of a nobleman, was built of wood. But the landlord's hut differed from the peasant's hut in size and availability of amenities, and the outbuildings were very diverse: the upper room of a wealthy man was heated by a stove with a chimney for smoke, while the peasant huddled in a hut. The complex of outbuildings of the boyar estate included facilities designed to serve numerous households: cookhouses, glaciers, cellars, bakeries, beer sheds, etc. In addition to the hut - living quarters, the peasant yard included a crate - an unheated room for storing clothes, utensils, grain , food supplies, as well as barns.
Innovations in everyday life penetrated primarily to the top of the nobility. They were due to the development of commodity-money relations and the beginning of the formation of the all-Russian market. Under their influence, both the material and spiritual conditions of life of the upper classes changed. In particular, the influx of products from Western European manufactories into Russia increased. Luxuries and comfort appeared in boyar houses, and the closer to the end of the century, the more the influence of Western Europe was felt.
The house of a wealthy nobleman, Sophia's favorite boyar V.V. Golitsyn, who readily perceived European comfort, was filled with items of Western European production. Many rooms of his brick house were furnished with European furniture, and the walls were hung with mirrors. A huge chandelier hung from the ceiling of the dining room, and expensive crockery was displayed on the shelves. In the bedroom there was a foreign-made bed with a canopy. Unlike Bezobrazov's library, which consisted of three dozen church books, Golitsyn's vast library contained many secular works, which testified to the high spiritual demands of its owner.
The tastes and manners of Golitsyn, as well as the luxurious furnishings in his house, were inherent in units even among the ruling elite. But the European influence, concerning, for example, clothing and facial hair, more or less widely penetrated into the court environment. About the fact that in the second half of the XVII century. they shaved their beards, the portraits that have come down to us testify. Secular and spiritual authorities opposed the penetration of new customs into the country. Alexei Mikhailovich demanded from the courtiers that they “do not adopt foreign German and other izvychay, do not cut their hair on their heads, do not wear dresses, caftans and hats from foreign samples, and therefore did not order their people to wear.” Tobacco smoking was considered a blasphemous occupation. The Code of 1649 threatened tobacco sellers with the death penalty, and smokers with exile in Siberia. There was also a weakening of the reclusive life of women in the boyar and royal chambers. Indicative in this regard is the fate of Princess Sophia, who plunged into the whirlpool of political struggle.
