From the editors of Skepticism: In Soviet history textbooks and in those post-Soviet ones where due attention was paid to populism, Pyotr Lavrov was presented as a leader or one of the leaders of the propaganda trend, opposed to Bakunin and Tkachev, the radical leaders of the anarchist and Blanquist trends, opponents of each other and Lavrism. Tkachev was mistaken in his conspiratorialism and isolation from the people, Bakunin in his adventurism and rebellion, and Lavrov in his moderation; This was the official Soviet scheme, which still determines the views of many leftists and not only leftists on the populist stage. As the published biographical sketch shows, Lavrov’s activities do not easily fit into this scheme. Initially close to the liberal populists, from the mid-1860s he was always a strong supporter of social revolution, and in 1871 he supported the Paris Commune. He did not find a common language with those who created the second “Land and Freedom”, combining propaganda with struggle (he was a member of the first and learned the most important lesson from its experience: it is a mistake to expect that the people themselves will rise to revolution) - but already in During the existence of “Narodnaya Volya”, he reevaluated his views, saw the importance of Narodnaya Volya for the development of the revolutionary movement in Russia and helped the Executive Committee of the organization.

Lavrov, who inspired a huge number of commoners to carry out propaganda work, was often criticized (including by those who initially followed him) for the preference he gave to propaganda over action. But, firstly - and this is mentioned in the essay - Lavrov did not actually adhere to this preference, recognizing that where propaganda is impossible or exhausts itself, direct action becomes a necessity - it was thanks to this conviction that he came to cooperate with the Narodnaya Volya . Secondly, his theory of propaganda turned out to be relevant even when the populist stage had long ended: thus, of course, the idea expressed by Lenin at the beginning of the 20th century that the working class is not able to get out of a purely economic struggle on its own is based on socialist political consciousness can only be given to him from the outside, there are similar arguments by Lavrov about his historical situation, although it is impossible to recognize Lenin’s idea as just a copy of Lavrov’s, Mikhail Sedov correctly emphasizes. This theory turns out to be relevant even today, during the period of complete destruction of the social sphere and accessible education, during the period of zombification by mass culture, when the demoralization of the population and the decline in its intellectual level are accelerating. In our situation, education, propaganda and counter-propaganda are of particular importance, and one of the main current tasks is to give them the greatest possible scale. Therefore, Lavrov's legacy - along with that of other revolutionary thinkers of that period - requires careful study, and this short biography serves as an excellent introduction to the views of one of the most important theorists of populism.

If you ask the question, what was the main thing in the revolutionary activity and literary work of P.L. Lavrov, there can be only one answer: the desire to awaken the Russian people to a conscious life, to raise them to the recognition of the need for revolution and a decisive restructuring of existing conditions. The next words from P.L. Lavrov can be an epigraph to his biography:

“One people has... enough energy, enough freshness to carry out a revolution that would improve the position of Russia. But the people do not know their strength, do not know the ability to overthrow their economic and political enemies. We need to raise it. The living element of the Russian intelligentsia has the responsibility to awaken it, to raise it, to unite its forces, to lead it into battle. He will destroy the monarchy that oppresses him, crush his exploiters and develop with his fresh forces a new, better society. Here and only here is the salvation of Russia.”

Highlight the role of P.L. Lavrov in the revolutionary movement of Russia is a complex and responsible matter. P.L. Lavrov was constantly in the center revolutionary events; his name and teachings caused lively controversy (especially interesting in this regard are the critical speeches against Lavrov by P.N. Tkachev and M.A. Bakunin). Meanwhile, we still do not have any complete collection of his works, not to mention a source analysis of them.

Historiography P.L. Lavrova originates from N.S. Rusanov, a famous publicist of the radical democratic school, a close friend and ally of Pyotr Lavrovich. By decision of the “Committee in Memory of P.L. Lavrov" (it included representatives of all factions of the Russian revolutionary movement, including the Social Democratic) N.S. Rusanov wrote an extensive and conscientiously executed article “P.L. Lavrov (essay on his life and work)". In this work, Lavrov appears before us in three qualities: as a person, as a social revolutionary, and as a thinker-theorist. According to N.S. Rusanov, Lavrov had “one of the most encyclopedic heads that ever existed in Russia (and, perhaps, abroad).” The author calls Lavrov “a hero of thought and conviction,” but rightly admits that he did not and could not become a follower of K. Marx and F. Engels, although he repeatedly called himself their student. Such a correct conclusion, unfortunately, was not accompanied by an indication that Lavrism as a system of views is strictly historical, that it could neither be a guide nor a banner of struggle for a new era of the revolutionary movement. The strength and significance of Lavrov and Lavrism are in the past, in the preparation of revolutionary protest and struggle of the masses, “in clearing the way,” as A.I. put it. Herzen. However, in Lavrov’s literary heritage there are provisions that are important not only in historically, but also have a completely modern sound. We will talk about this later, however. Subsequently N.S. Rusanov repeatedly turned to Lavrov’s work, but the main points he expressed in the above-mentioned article remained unchanged.

Before the revolution, special works about the role of P.L. Lavrov was not in the Russian revolutionary movement, although in general works his name occupied one of the first places. All this literature in its direction can be called bourgeois-liberal. She views Lavrism mainly as a socio-political utopia, a delusion, a “separation” from real life. Class analysis was alien to pre-revolutionary authors. They did not see Lavrov’s teachings as reflecting the interests of the peasantry. But already at that time there were researchers who saw in Lavrism something between Marxism and populism. A well-known expert on the history of Russian utopian socialism K.A. Pajitnov wrote that Lavrov “cannot be called either an orthodox populist or an orthodox Marxist; he was, so to speak, a populist in Marxism or a Marxist in populism.” The inconsistency of this view is obvious. Nevertheless, it received a well-known reflection even in Soviet literature.

Enormous opportunities for studying the revolutionary activities of P.L. Lavrov opened after October revolution. In the early 20s, the scientific community celebrated two anniversaries of P.L. Lavrov - the 20th anniversary of his death and the 100th anniversary of his birth, which undoubtedly increased interest in him. The literary reflection of the anniversary events were two collections of articles - “Forward” and “P.L. Lavrov", published in 1920–1922. Many of Lavrov’s works that were previously banned by censorship were republished. Thus, his books “The Paris Commune” (1919), “The Social Revolution and the Problems of Morality” (1924), “Populists Propagandists” (1925) were published. It was intended to publish Lavrov's collected works. Personality of P. L. Lavrov and his literary creativity attracted the attention of historians. Different points of view emerged on the problem as a whole and on its individual aspects. M.N. Pokrovsky argued that Lavrov was not a consistent revolutionary, and his views were eclectic and conservative. Opposite views were expressed by I.S. Knizhnik-Vetrov and B.I. Gorev, who tried to prove that there is much in common between Marxism and Lavrov’s teachings, that Lavrov’s tactical principles are close to the principles of the Third International. This was a clear modernization, but in those years this interpretation had some success. There were other opinions. So, D.N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky argued, for example, that Lavrov is generally a random figure in the revolutionary movement.

The difference in points of view did not exclude, however, the general recognition of the fact that Lavrov as a person and Lavrism as a system of views occupied a significant place in the Russian liberation movement of the 19th century. The introductory articles of I.A. were devoted to the disclosure of this circumstance. Teodorovich and I.S. Knizhnik-Vetrova to the first volume of Lavrov’s selected works, published in 1934. Individual errors do not deprive these articles of interest. IN AND. Lenin, according to V.D. Bonch-Bruevich, among the materials of the revolutionary underground press recommended for republication, also named “Forward” published under the leadership of Lavrov. IN last years after a significant break Soviet historians returned to the study of the problems of populism. In particular, works have appeared that highlight certain aspects of Lavrov’s life and work. So, B.S. Itenberg examined in detail the question of the revolutionary influence of Lavrov’s “Historical Letters” on the youth of the 70s. Works of a philosophical and sociological nature related to the topic under consideration were published. From the above it is clear that, despite the contradictory concepts about P.L. Lavrov, his role in the revolutionary movement was significant and his literary heritage and practical activities require careful study.

Pyotr Lavrovich Lavrov was born in 1823 into the family of a wealthy and conservative nobleman in his views. His father, Lavr Stepanovich, was closely acquainted with the temporary worker Arakcheev and was even introduced to Emperor Alexander I. Thus, the social environment from which the future ideologist of populism emerged did not contain anything that would promote freethinking and radicalism. The young man grew up and was brought up in an atmosphere of extreme religiosity and exceptional devotion to the official foundations of Russian life. At the same time, from early childhood he was instilled with respect for work and an exceptional love of books - qualities that he carried throughout his life.

At the age of fourteen, Peter was assigned to the Artillery School and at the age of nineteen, having graduated brilliantly, he became an officer, revealing high talents and a passion for mathematics. In 1844 he was admitted to the same school as a teacher general course mathematics. Being in a military institution did not prevent P.L. Lavrov to show interest in social and political issues. He became thoroughly acquainted with the history of the French bourgeois revolution of the late 18th century, and its events fascinated him. At the same time, Lavrov read Fourier’s works for the first time. Some of the social ideas of the great French utopian thinker made a great impression on the young man. Quite early, Lavrov began writing poetry. Some of his poems were successful and passed from hand to hand in manuscript. However, he did not have a poetic talent, and N.A. Nekrasov, apparently, correctly characterized this side of Lavrov’s work, saying that his poems are rhymed editorials. Already at school, Lavrov created “his own” philosophy of history, which can be expressed like this: “What will happen, will not be avoided.” Lavrov himself called it philosophical fatalism. Soon, however, under the influence of the rapid developments of events inside and outside Russia, this view changed: Lavrov began to emphasize the active role of the individual, the party and the masses in historical events. By the 1930s, according to Lavrov, his worldview

“in general terms it was established, but for him it became clear and worked out in detail only in the process of literary work in the late 50s. Since then, he has found it neither necessary nor possible to change it in any significant point.”

During the period of preparation and implementation of the peasant reform, P.L. Lavrov actively declared himself in public life. He collaborated in publications by A.I. Herzen, stood close to the student movement and constantly provided assistance to its participants. Lavrov has always been at the center of events and literary movements of the progressive camp; he became part of the “Land and Freedom” of the 60s. Although his revolutionary sentiments had not yet taken shape, the government nevertheless considered him an unreliable person. That is why P.L. Lavrov was put on trial and exiled to the city of Kadnikov, Vologda province, in connection with the Karakozov case, although his involvement in it was not legally proven.

During the years of exile P.L. Lavrov wrote and published his “Historical Letters,” a work that was destined to play a truly outstanding role. Obviously, their intention, or at least their main ideas, must be attributed to more early period. “Historical Letters” were published in the magazine “Nedelya” (1868–1869), and in 1870 they were published as a separate publication. Even in the democratic camp they were regarded differently. A.I. Herzen put them very highly, N.K. Mikhailovsky, on the contrary, did not attach any importance to them, and P.N. Tkachev spoke out with sharp criticism. Young people immediately adopted them. It seems to us that the secret of the success of the “Historical Letters” was that they revealed a new view of the history of society and showed the possibility of turning a blind historical process into a conscious process, and man was considered not as a toy of unknowable laws, but as the center historical events. Pointing out to a person that his fate is in his own hands, that he is free to choose the path of development and achievement of the ideal, “which must inevitably establish itself in humanity as a single scientific truth,” in itself seemed to be an important and truly mobilizing means. This was the answer to the question of what to do. This is how the subjective method appeared in sociology, as the antithesis of bourgeois objectivism.

In theoretical terms (as has long been noted) P.L. Lavrov organically combined the idea of ​​D.I. Pisarev about “thinking realists” with an appeal to N.A. Dobrolyubov’s message to young people is to “act on the people directly and directly” in order to prepare them for a conscious life. These elements formed Lavrov’s well-known formula for progress:

“The development of the individual in physical, mental and moral terms, the embodiment of truth and justice in social forms - this is short formula, embracing, it seems to me, everything that can be considered progress.”

Despite the abstractness, this formula clearly reveals the idea of ​​the need for a decisive change in the existing foundations of social and state life, since under them the development of the individual is impossible, neither physically, nor mentally, nor morally.

Emphasizing that the general economic depression of the exploited sections of society, their cultural backwardness and downtroddenness, in fact, disfigure the personality in the physical and mental sense, P, L. Lavrov continued, emphasizing the moral side:

“The development of personality in moral terms is only possible when the social environment allows and encourages the development of independent conviction in individuals; when individuals have the opportunity to defend their various convictions and are thereby forced to respect the freedom of someone else’s conviction, when a person has realized that his dignity lies in his conviction and that respect for the dignity of someone else’s personality is respect for his own dignity.”

To realize the ideal, the individual must become a force.

“We need not only words, we need action. We need energetic, fanatical people who risk everything and are ready to sacrifice everything.”

But it turns out that these qualities are not enough for victory. We need to organize critically thinking individuals into a party capable of independent actions and influencing the people.

“But individuals... are only possible agents of progress. They become real leaders only when they are able to fight, when they are able to turn from insignificant units into a collective force, a representative of thought.”

As we can see, the main problem raised by the author of “Historical Letters” was the formulation of a new view on the role of the individual in history and modern life, in creating a theory of personality and in identifying the role and interaction in social progress and changing living conditions of three forces: the individual - the party - the masses.

“Historical Letters” are addressed to the intelligentsia, more precisely, to all those who think critically, who can rise above the level of modern life and develop a moral ideal that will serve as a banner for uniting units into a party, since the individual taken in itself is devoid of social power. The party, in turn, will rally the progressive forces of society around itself and, having penetrated the people, will go with them to revolutionary changes. For P.L. Lavrov, the initiator of social transformations is the individual, and the force capable of carrying out these transformations are the masses, who appear to be “the most energetic figures of progress.” Thus, a new theory arose - a “critically thinking personality”, the central point of which was the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe duty of the intelligentsia to the people. The implementation of new forms of work and community life, previously developed by a critical personality, is the payment of the debt to the people.

Despite the idealistic basis for solving this problem, proposed by P.L. Lavrov’s ideas were in tune with the times, progressive, they mobilized the advanced forces of society to fight against the foundations of tsarist Russia. It is no coincidence that “Historical Letters” played a big role in the liberation movement of the post-reform period, being a theoretical expression of the revolutionary struggle of the heterodox intelligentsia of the era of populism and later the Narodnaya Volya. This is how N.S., mentioned above, evaluates Rusanov their influence on youth:

“Many of us... never parted with a small, tattered, scribbled, completely worn-out book. She was lying under our headboard. And while reading it at night, our hot tears of ideological enthusiasm fell on it, seizing us with an immense thirst to live for noble ideas and die for them.”

The motto of “Historical Letters” was: everything for the people (including one’s own life). In the development of the doctrine of sacrifice, “Historical Letters” were one of the most important links. Lavrov’s “Historical Letters” and “What is Progress?” Mikhailovsky formulated new theory personality and progress. Both authors, independently of each other, gave almost identical definitions of progress, emphasizing that its meaning lies in the harmonious development of the individual, in the individual’s struggle for individuality, for physical, mental and moral improvement. Progress is the goal and meaning of struggle. As for the individual, she is assigned the role of a lever of progress, its internal spring. Based on this, we can say that the theory of progress and personality theory of P.L. Lavrov’s works are unthinkable without the other; they can even be identified. Taken in its initial (criticism of the existing system) and final (realization of the ideal) points, this theory is equally acceptable for all currents of revolutionary thought in Russia in the post-reform period. This commonality is explained by the unity of the class nature of these movements. In addition, it is based on the traditions of the progressive intelligentsia serving the people. Throughout the history of the revolutionary movement, this service was dominated by an element of selflessness and doom. And if in Lavrov-Mikhailovsky’s personality theory the central point was the idea of ​​struggle, duty and sacrifice, then everything else seemed illogical and unnatural. And the theory of personality itself appeared because the Russian reality of that time excluded the activity of the masses. Now it is easy to answer the question why the “Historical Letters” were addressed to the intelligentsia. There were no other forces capable of mastering the tasks of social reconstruction at that time.

February 15, 1870 Lavrov with the help of G.A. Lopatina fled from exile abroad. Contemporaries and historians explained this act in different ways. The fact is that Lavrov did not enjoy the reputation of a revolutionary at that time; he was considered an armchair scientist with a liberal way of thinking. According to N.S. Rusanov, the flight was caused by Lavrov’s desire to “participate in a living political struggle.” This opinion is completely rejected by researcher V. Vityazev, believing that Lavrov fled only to study scientific work. Now it can be considered proven that Lavrov’s escape was caused by political motives and is associated with the intention of revolutionary-minded youth to create a foreign press organ similar to Herzen’s “Bell”. So, N.A. Morozov points out that, while in exile, P.L. Lavrov expressed his consent to the Tchaikovsky members “to go abroad if he is given funds for an organ like Herzen’s Bell.” A.I. knew about the preparations for the escape. Herzen was ready to accept P.L. Lavrov at home, but this did not happen: in January 1870 A.I. Herzen died.

Abroad, Lavrov immediately established connections with members of the Russian section of the First International - A.V. Korvin-Krukovskoy, E.G. Barteneva and E.L. Dmitrieva. He received a set of issues of “People's Affairs”, which was of great importance, since this organ expressed the views of the young Russian emigration. It is known that “People's Affairs” as a theoretical journal began to be published in 1868 in Geneva and its first issue consisted entirely of articles written by M.A. Bakunin and N. Zhukovsky, which in itself already indicated his theoretical basis and political direction. The magazine presented in a condensed form the anarchist point of view on the tasks of the revolutionary struggle in Russia. He immediately found supporters in the Russian underground. However, already from the second issue, “People’s Cause” passed to N.I. Utin, since Bakunin left the editorial office. Then the magazine was transformed into a newspaper of the same name, which in March 1870 began to be published as the organ of the Russian section of the First International.

Like P.L. Lavrov’s attitude towards this organization is difficult to say, but he did not become a member of the Russian section of the First International, but joined it later, in the fall of 1870, on the recommendation of the famous figure in the French labor movement L. Varlin. It can be assumed that P.L. Lavrov did not approve of the struggle of the Russian section with M.A. Bakunin and his like-minded people and did not want to associate his name with the opponents of Bakuninism. He believed that the struggle within the party was harmful to the party itself and beneficial to its enemies. This constant desire to find a path to peace in the party at any cost was condemned by F. Engels in one of his letters to Lavrov.

“Every struggle,” wrote F. Engels, “contains moments when it is impossible not to give the enemy some pleasure, if you do not otherwise want to cause positive harm to yourself. Fortunately, we have advanced so far that we can give the enemy such private pleasure if at this price we achieve real success.”

His poem, written at the end of 1870, speaks about Lavrov’s mood and political views at that time. It expresses the idea of ​​the necessity and inevitability of revolution and that one must rely only on the people who rise up in the name of brotherhood, equality and freedom. The poet deeply believes in the renewing mission of the upcoming revolution and exclaims:

Obviously, this orientation was the reason for the direct participation of P.L. Lavrov in the Paris Commune. He later became one of its first researchers. This fact is of exceptional interest. Lavrov’s letter to N. Stackenschneider dated May 5, 1871 contains the following lines:

“The struggle of Paris at the present moment is a historical struggle, and it is now truly in the first row of humanity. If he managed to defend himself, it would move history significantly forward, but even if he falls, if reaction triumphs, the ideas witnessed by several unknown people who emerged from the people, the real people, and became the head of government, these people will not die.”

These words are not the result of short-term inspiration and the delight of a heroic struggle; they set forth a holistic view, a concept for understanding one of the outstanding events of world history. When the terrible days of the death of the Commune arrived, the reactionary and liberal press poured out streams of dirty slander against the Communards. Lavrov was one of the first to write in those days:

“The Paris Commune of 1871 will be an important milestone in the human movement, and this date will not be forgotten.”

He retained this view of the Commune throughout his life. In 1875 he wrote:

“The revolution of 1871 was the moment when, from the larva of the fourth estate, a united humanity of working people emerged and declared its rights to the future. The great days of March 1871 were the first days in which the proletariat not only brought about a revolution, but also took charge of it. This was the first revolution of the proletariat."

He expressed the same thoughts, but even more reasoned, in 1879 in a speech about the Commune to Russian emigrants and in a special study - “March 18, 1871”, published in 1880 in Geneva. This work saves scientific significance and to the present time.

From the battlefield of the Parisian communards P.L. Lavrov emerged with an even stronger belief in the necessity and possibility of revolution in Russia. But on his native soil, at that time he could not pin his hopes on the working class. The experience of the Paris Commune helped Lavrov to finally get rid of the fluctuations between liberalism and democracy that took place in the 60s. It is also obvious that the Commune, if not generated, then at least strengthened his international feelings. P.L. Lavrov was alien to national narrow-mindedness; he promoted and theoretically developed revolutionary internationalism. In promoting the experience of the Commune, in educating Russian youth using its example, is one of the undoubted merits of P.L. Lavrov before the revolutionary history of Russia.

After the turbulent events of the Paris Commune, in the atmosphere of European reaction, Lavrov’s attention again and entirely turned to the state of affairs in Russia. Here at this time a new phase of the liberation movement began, associated with a new type of seventies revolutionary. The Tchaikovsky circle became a significant force in the social movement. It included talented people devoted to the revolution, some of them later played the role of active fighters against tsarism. The Tchaikovsky circle outlined an extensive plan of action, in which a large place was given to printed propaganda. In the spring of 1872, one of the members of the circle, young M.A., was sent abroad. Kupriyanov. He negotiated with Lavrov about the publication of the magazine “Forward”. The idea of ​​​​creating a printed revolutionary organ turned out to be very popular, it was shared by people of various political directions of the underground. It seemed that he would unite them all. However, such a unification did not happen, and could not have happened due to the sharp differences in worldview and tactical plans adhered to by various emigration groups representing certain trends in Russia.

A small circle of like-minded people formed around Lavrov, among whom V.N. took an active position. Smirnov, S.A. Podolinsky and A.L. Linev. Even earlier, a circle of Bakunin direction arose (M.P. Sazhin-Ros, Z.K. Ralli, A.G. Elsints, etc.). Negotiations began between them about joint actions, and some time later it was planned to involve Tkachev, who had fled from Russia, in the work. But attempts to unite were unsuccessful, since the views of the parties turned out to be very different. Despite this, in August 1873 the first issue of the magazine “Forward” was published. From 1873 to 1877, five of his books were published, one of which (No. 4) was entirely occupied by P.L.’s monograph. Lavrov “The state element in the future society.” The fifth issue of the magazine was published without Lavrov’s participation. For two years (from January 1, 1875 to December 1876), a biweekly newspaper of the same name was published (48 issues in total). The soul of the whole affair was P.L. Lavrov.

The magazine Forward had a wide audience, and its influence was not limited to the underground. It is known, for example, that the magazine financially supported I.S. Turgenev. Lavrov and his friends largely inspired the great writer in his work. The goals and direction of the magazine were formulated in the first issue, in the article “Our Program”:

“Far from our homeland we are planting our banner, the banner of social revolution for Russia, for the whole world. This is not the business of a person, this is not the business of a circle, this is the business of all Russians who have realized that the real political order is leading Russia to destruction, that the real social system is powerless to heal its wounds. We don't have a name. We are all Russians who demand for Russia the domination of the people, the real people, all Russians who realize that this domination can only be achieved by a popular uprising, and who have decided to prepare this uprising, to make clear to the people their rights, their strength, their responsibilities.”

The fundamental task of the magazine, therefore, was to contribute to the preparation of a popular uprising by influencing the people through various means and, above all, propaganda. A prominent place in the program was occupied by the thesis about the main role of the masses in the revolutionary process. The opinion that Lavrov ignored the people in his sociological constructions is not only a mistake, but a distortion of historical fact.

“In first place,” wrote P.L. Lavrov, “we put forward the position that the restructuring of Russian society must be carried out not only for the purpose of the people’s good, not only for the people, but also through the people.”

In many of his works, written at different times, we encounter similar provisions dozens of times. These are not words and phrases taken out of context, but a harmonious system of views, the basis of P.L.’s entire worldview. Lavrova.

The main feature of the journalistic materials of “Forward” was their accusatory nature. IN AND. Lenin wrote about this kind of journalism:

“One of the main conditions for the necessary expansion of political agitation is the organization of comprehensive political denunciations. Otherwise, how can political consciousness and revolutionary activity of the masses be nurtured on these denunciations.”

Of the fifty-three issues of the magazine and newspaper, there is not a single one that does not contain criticism of the social system of Russia and its system of political governance. But among the numerous striking incriminating materials, two of the most revealing ones should be highlighted - the articles “Accounts of the Russian People” and “Samara Famine”, written by P.L. Lavrov. Here's what the first one said:

“It’s been 260 years since the Russian people, through a common effort, liberated Moscow from its enemies, defended the independence of the Russian land, and Zemsky Sobor Russian land elected the first Romanov as Moscow Tsar. Since then, scores began between the House of Romanov and the Russian people.”

We, Lavrov continued, have no personal enmity towards any of the emperors.

“We know that they were all spoiled and should have been spoiled by unlimited power.”

The power of kings and emperors could never benefit the people. Their actions are explained not by the subjective qualities of one or another monarch of Russia, but by the class nature of their power. The task, therefore, comes down not to replacing one emperor with another, but to destroying tsarism as a system of power.

How did the House of Romanov behave in relation to the development of science and free thought? - asked P.L. Lavrov.

“Let the Radishchevs and Novikovs answer this... let the thirty-year stifling reign of Nicholas answer, let modern Russian literature answer, with Herzen and Ogarev in exile, with Chernyshevsky and Mikhailov in hard labor, with departments without professors.”

“Not a single talented statesman; careerists, money-grubbers and simply swindlers - that’s who rules Russia, they are not interested in anything except personal gain, they will swear allegiance to anyone in the name of this gain... It’s time for the Russian people to put an end to the Romanovs’ scores that began 260 years ago.”

P.L. comes to this conclusion. Lavrov.

Even more impressive is the description of the famine in Russia made in the second article. Here are striking pictures of the misfortunes of the people in a number of provinces, and primarily in Samara. The causes of these disasters P.L. Lavrov saw in the Russian state system:

“The Russian state system everywhere sucks out all the strength of the Russian people and fatally leads them to degeneration. If this order continues for some time, it will inevitably exhaust all of Russia, the entire Russian people.”

The accusatory nature of Lavrov's journalism shows that in this sense he continued the work of Herzen, Belinsky, Chernyshevsky and other figures of the era of the fall of serfdom. Speaking about the role of Chernyshevsky in the liberation movement, P.L. Lavrov emphasized that Russian youth believed him most of all and that in terms of influence on them he had no equal among his contemporaries. Lavrov and Chernyshevsky were united, first of all, by the idea of ​​revolution, confidence in the necessity and inevitability of a radical revolutionary transformation of Russia, as well as the socialist ideal in the name of which such a transformation should take place. However, in the area economic sciences and philosophy, Lavrov was in many ways inferior to Chernyshevsky.

IN common system Lavrov's views are central to his teaching on socialism. Almost all of his works, starting with “Historical Letters,” are subordinated to the idea of ​​socialism. This is not accidental, because the meaning of the revolutionary struggle, according to P.L. Lavrov, there could only be socialism. Moreover, socialism for P.L. Lavrova is a natural and logical result historical development society. He invariably connected all the highest motives and the moral process of humanity with socialism. The ideas about socialism were formed by P.L. Lavrov was primarily influenced by the teachings of Herzen, as well as Western European utopian schools. The magazine “Forward” preached the theory of Russian utopian socialism:

“For the Russian there is a special soil on which the future of the majority of the Russian population can develop in the sense indicated common tasks of our time, there is a peasantry with communal land ownership. To develop our community in the sense of communal cultivation of the land and communal use of its products, to make the secular gathering the main political element of the Russian social system, to absorb private property into communal property, to give the peasantry that education and that understanding of their social needs, without which they will never be able to take advantage of their legal rights... - these are specifically Russian goals that every Russian who wants progress for his fatherland should contribute to.”

From these “specially Russian goals” a disdainful attitude towards the tasks of political struggle logically grew. At this point, the views of Lavrov and Bakunin largely converged. True, later, during the time of “Narodnaya Volya”, P.L. Lavrov put the tasks of political struggle in the first place, and in this sense he can be called a political revolutionary. However, the presence of elements of apoliticality - characteristic laurelism. This can be explained by the fact that Lavrov was a spokesman for the interests of the peasantry, which at that time showed a certain political indifference.

As already noted, Lavrov was influenced by the Paris Commune, as well as the works of K. Marx and F. Engels. All of the above-mentioned ideological sources are easily found in the journalism and scientific works of P.L. Lavrova. Here, however, we must immediately make a reservation: the diversity of theoretical influences did not deprive Lavrov’s point of view on socialism of originality and harmony. He considered the components of socialism to be the labor activity of all citizens according to their abilities and the economic well-being of everyone depending on the results of labor. In other words, the famous position of the Saint-Simonists, formulated in 1830 - “from each - according to his abilities, and to each - according to his deeds” - was completely assimilated and accepted by Lavrov. Moreover, the special importance of the economic side of the matter was emphasized:

"At the basis of everything social progress lies economic improvement. Without it, freedom, equality, liberal legislation, and a broad educational program are empty words. Poverty is slavery, no matter how the beggar is called - free or serf... The most excellent constitutions are a mockery of the people if pauperism deprives them of independence. The most progressive revolutions will not improve the social situation one bit if they do not touch upon economic issues.”

Another component of socialism P.L. Lavrov considered equal conditions for the education and cultural development of all citizens. Under socialism there can be no national, social, racial, etc. privileges. People are equal to each other, they are brothers. This was Lavrov’s idea of ​​the ideal of the social system, that is, socialism. He said:

“Equality... does not at all consist in the perfect identity of all human individuals, but in the equality of their relations among themselves... A certain specialization of occupations, called division of labor by Adam Smith, can exist if only it turns out to be necessary or useful, but it is necessary that this specialization did not influence the relationships of people outside of work, so that it did not lead to class and castes, to the division of people into clean and dirty, into simple and difficult and, most importantly, into parasites and workers, into exploiters and exploited.”

As for the political forms of society under socialism, Lavrov did not give any definite answer on this matter.

The thought of P.L. seems extremely important. Lavrov that the masses on their own cannot develop a socialist ideology. It must be brought in from outside. Lavrov was confident that such eras in which movements like peasant wars under the leadership of Razin and Pugachev, went into a unique past. A new awakening is possible only as a result of the ideological influence of revolutionary elements on the masses. Propaganda itself must be based on the accuracy of facts, scientific criticism and absolute honesty, for “lying is a crime” in any revolutionary cause. Lavrov believed that socialism is “the result of historical development, the result of the history of thought. That is why it cannot develop itself among the masses, from their elementary common sense. It can and should be brought to the masses.” The above words indicate the enormous role assigned to P.L. Lavrov of the socialist-minded intelligentsia, who brought a new worldview to the people.

How now, after almost a hundred years, can one react to this thought? Taken on its own, it is certainly true. Indeed, not only the exploited people in general, but even the working class in particular cannot independently develop a socialist ideology. This ideology is introduced into the working environment from outside by the proletarian party. However, we should not forget that Lavrov’s very formulation of this problem was utopian. The masses of the pre-proletarian era, without the proletariat, can neither be the driving force of socialist transformations nor bearers of the ideas of socialism. Consequently, talk about introducing socialism from the outside turned out to be groundless at that time. Therefore, it is impossible to associate this position of Lavrov with the well-known thesis of V.I. Lenin on introducing socialist consciousness into the working environment. Despite this, however, the very fact of Lavrov’s theoretical searches in this direction undoubtedly individualizes and distinguishes him from the cohort of theorists of the 70s.

The following words of Lavrov attract attention:

“Our progress is not only the triumph of one class of people over another, of labor over monopoly, of knowledge over tradition, of association over competition. Our victory is something higher for us: it is the realization of the mental and moral goal of the development of the individual, society and all humanity.”

Naturally, for the sake of such an ideal and in its name, truly great revolutionaries could develop and mature. Socialist beliefs gave them unprecedented strength:

“This conviction will help us fight and die for the triumph of future generations, a triumph that we will not see.”

P.L. Lavrov believed that

“a revolutionary from a privileged environment must work for the benefit of the revolution, not because he feels bad, but because the people feel bad; he sacrifices his personal benefits, which his position in an absurd social order gives him.”

However, the idea of ​​helping the people itself would not be so attractive if there were not a very important addition to it. It's about about future social development, about who it belongs to.

“The future,” Lavrov writes, “does not belong to predators who eat and destroy everything around them, who eat each other in an eternal struggle for a more delicious piece, for looted wealth, for domination over the masses and for the opportunity to exploit them. It belongs to people who set themselves human goals mutual development, the goal of theoretical truth and moral truth, people capable of acting together, together for a common goal, for the common good, for general development, for the implementation of the highest human ideals in life and social forms.”

However, despite many bright and expressive judgments about socialism and the need for its victory, Lavrism remained a utopia, since it did not take into account the working class as the only consistent fighter for socialism; in this regard, it does not go beyond the framework of pre-proletarian socialism. At the same time, we must not forget that the ideas of equality served at that time as the slogan of the revolutionary struggle and in this sense were of enormous importance.

Once an ideal has been developed, the means to implement it must be found. Such means can be varied, but the decisive one, according to Lavrov, was revolution. It is a historically inevitable and indispensable lever of social transformation. It should be emphasized that P.L. Lavrov was not a supporter of every revolution; he was interested in the people's revolution.

“The goal of the revolution,” he wrote, “is to establish a fair society, i.e. one where all will have the same opportunity to enjoy and develop, and all will have the same duty to work."

“The restructuring of Russian society must be carried out not only for the purpose of the people’s good, not only for the people, but also through the people.”

Lavrov considered the fact that there was no strong and organized bourgeoisie in Russia to be a positive development for the coming social revolution:

“Our bourgeoisie of landowners, merchants and industrialists has no political tradition, is not united in its exploitation of the people, itself suffers from the oppression of the administration and has not developed historical strength.”

The revolution, according to Lavrov, comes when

“when among the masses an intelligentsia is produced that is capable of giving popular movement an organization that could withstand the organization of their oppressors; or when the best part of the public intelligentsia comes to the aid of the masses and brings to the people the results of thought developed by generations, knowledge accumulated over centuries.”

Since the conditions of Russian life exclude the possibility of the emergence of an intelligentsia directly among the people, the idea of ​​a union of the already existing intelligentsia with the people naturally came to the fore:

“Only the union of the intelligentsia of a few and the strength of the popular masses can give this victory.”

However, this kind of union does not arise by itself. He may be, according to P.L. Lavrov, only the result of long and persistent work and struggle. This work is hard and harsh, it requires serious and tireless workers. It is necessary, first of all, to break through to the people, to capture their attention and interests, to awaken in them a sense of search and desire to fight. The biggest obstacle on this path was the downtroddenness and inertia of the masses. It was necessary to overcome this obstacle, to get closer to the people, and hence the slogan - to go to the people in order to awaken them. It is known that this call fell on fertile soil and contributed to a broad movement of the intelligentsia into the midst of the workers and peasants. The very formulation of the question of bringing the democratic intelligentsia closer to the people after A.I. Herzen was no longer considered new. But it retained its relevance, and in the early 70s it acquired even greater political urgency due to the fact that the hopes of revolutionary figures for a spontaneous rise of the peasant movement did not materialize. Even that part of the intelligentsia that went to the people, not setting out to rouse them to revolution, but simply getting closer to them, did revolutionary work.

The idea of ​​“simplifying” the intelligentsia in order to bring them closer to the people in the name of implementing revolutionary changes, justified and developed by Lavrov, seems to be a phenomenon that is certainly historically interesting. What to go to the people with and what to bring to them - this is one of the main questions posed by the magazine “Forward”. The main task of the settlers who find themselves in the midst of the people is to

“merging with the masses of the people... to form an energetic enzyme with the help of which the existing dissatisfaction with their situation among the people would be maintained and grew, an enzyme with the help of which fermentation would begin where it does not exist and would intensify where it exists.”

If legal ways to improve the situation of the masses are closed, “then there is only one path left - the path of revolution, one activity - preparation for revolution, propaganda in favor of it,” and “an honest, convinced Russian person in our time can see the salvation of the Russian people only on the path of radical, social revolution." The above words leave no doubt about why Lavrov called on young people to join the people and what tasks he set for them. This means that the thesis about the non-revolutionary nature of Lavrov’s propaganda disappears, as well as the assertion that “Forward” pursued educational rather than revolutionary goals.

Lavrov could not imagine implementing his revolutionary plans without seriously organizing an underground movement within Russia. For him, the revolutionary underground was nothing more than young Russia’s response to the reactionary actions of the government.

“The consequence of the first pressure on young people,” he wrote, “was the formation of “Land and Freedom.” The consequence of the persecution that followed the St. Petersburg fires, the closure of Sunday schools, and the condemnation of Chernyshevsky to hard labor was the formation of an embittered circle from which Karakozov emerged.”

The same government measures also give rise to an opposition that does not unite with the revolutionaries, but creates a favorable environment for them.

“The government of Alexander II finally developed, through its reactionary measures, an opposition in Russia, still unconscious, unorganized, but nevertheless ready to listen to the voices addressed to the Russian people with a revolutionary appeal.”

Lavrov's works were widely used by participants in the revolutionary movement. Suffice it to recall that they appeared in almost all political processes of those years. But, despite the consonance of the main ideas of the publication “Forward” with the needs of the social movement, new tactical and strategic plans matured in the revolutionary environment. After the failure of the campaign among the people and the defeat of underground organizations in the early 70s, a new situation arose in Russia. The victory of reaction persistently demanded an immediate reorientation of the revolutionary forces. There was a need to change both the tasks and forms of movement. New demands were placed on the journal “Forward” as a theoretical body. In the movement of the intelligentsia, a bias towards a purely populist side was clearly revealed in that specific understanding of populism, which had already developed by the time of the formation of “Land and Freedom”.

“Forward” and the Vperyodites did not share this new trend and continued to recognize the propaganda of the ideas of socialism as the main task of the day. There was a need to discuss new issues. Congress of representatives of revolutionary groups in Russia associated with the publication of P.L. Lavrov's "Forward", opened in Paris in early December 1876. Unfortunately, very little is known about this interesting event, which took place at the moment of a change in orientation and slogans. The congress was small. It was attended by delegates from three centers: Odessa, St. Petersburg and the London publishing circle “Forward”. The participation in his work of G. Popko, K. Grinevich, A. Linev, P. Lavrov, S. Ginzburg and V. Smirnov is reliably known. Lavrov did not name all the participants of the congress. He wrote about it this way:

“I do not name the rest of the people present at the congress, since for most of them I do not know how much the disclosure of their names could have harmed them; for some, and among the most influential, I know that they managed not to persecuted, and they now appear in the role of peaceful and well-meaning ordinary people.”

The congress showed that the views of the delegates were far from coinciding with what Vperyod advocated. Reports from the field were strongly critical of Lavrov's position. First of all, it was recognized that revolutionary activity cannot be limited to promoting the ideas of socialism. Propaganda by example is required. For these purposes, a centralized organization of revolutionaries is needed, capable of inciting protest and leading the movement, directing it in a certain direction. In other words, the revolutionary movement was taking on new tracks. Land Volunteerism became a new form of populism.

The speeches at the congress alarmed P.L. Lavrova. He treated the bearers of new ideas with great distrust and even suspicion. In a letter to a comrade from Kyiv P.L. Lavrov pointed out:

“I feel the need to be sure that we really agree on our ideals of social revolutionary activity; that the propagandists who march under the same banner with me really do propagandize, i.e. recruit, group and organize revolutionary forces, and do not limit themselves to factoring, distributing books and pamphlets, without at all thinking of implementing what is said in the latter, without at all trying to expand and refresh their circle with new forces, but, on the contrary, making it a closed circle of nepotism and monopolies. Before I enter into an obvious connection with circles, providing them with the publication and distribution of my works, I need to know whether I can accept moral responsibility for their activities in Russia.”

Lavrov expressed particular concern and dissatisfaction with regard to the circle in St. Petersburg. He wrote:

“In the decisions taken at the congress in December 1876, my only desire was to stand apart from the circle of St. Petersburg residents, without at the same time harming the continuation of business.”

The St. Petersburg circle, as is known, emphasized propaganda and agitation among the people, and not among the intelligentsia, and wanted to give its propaganda the character of open struggle.

The decisions of the Paris congress came as a surprise to Lavrov and determined the turn in his political life. He refused to edit Vperyod and broke ties with the Petersburg underground. With the new organization “Land and Freedom” that emerged in St. Petersburg at the end of 1876, P.L. Lavrov had no direct contacts, and the landowners did not show initiative in this regard. From that time on, the ideas and tactical guidelines of Bakunin decisively won in the revolutionary underground of the north of Russia. But, despite this seemingly unconditional defeat, P.L. Lavrov never ceased to influence the revolutionary movement in Russia.

The turning point in the revolutionary movement, which was expressed in the collapse of “Land and Freedom” and the formation of “Narodnaya Volya” and “Black Redistribution”, as well as in the aggravation of the political situation within the country, was reflected in Lavrov’s position. The movement of the Land Volyas concerned him little, but the activities of the People's Volya captured his entire attention and captivated him. Not immediately, after a critical analysis of the Narodnaya Volya program by P.L. Lavrov saw in the Narodnaya Volya movement a great force that expressed popular protest and popular ideals. In turn, for the Narodnaya Volya it was not indifferent which side Lavrov was on, with whom the Russian revolutionary underground always reckoned. The Executive Committee established contacts with him and entrusted him with representing the interests of Narodnaya Volya outside Russia. P.L. Lavrov carried out this responsible assignment with exceptional conscientiousness, understanding the importance of this mission. He often managed to sway European public opinion towards the Narodnaya Volya. Under his influence, the French government refused to extradite the famous Narodnaya Volya member L.A. to Russia. Hartmann. P.L. Lavrov became one of the initiators and organizers of the foreign Red Cross “People's Will”. Together with L.A. Tikhomirov and M.N. Oshanina, he published and edited the “Bulletin of the People’s Will”. Some of his major works were also placed there. P.L. Lavrov, in essence, turned out to be one of the most consistent defenders of the Narodnaya Volya ideology. He deeply believed that Narodnaya Volya was then the most progressive form of struggle against tsarism and that it raised the prestige of the Russian revolutionary to unprecedented heights. P.L. Lavrov resolutely opposed those who equated Narodnaya Volya with terrorism. It is necessary to distinguish, he said, the principled side of Narodnaya Volya from the forms into which it can develop under certain historical conditions.

Figures from other political directions also listened to Lavrov’s advice. The famous revolutionary E. Durnovo wrote to him at the end of May 1881:

“On behalf of the Moscow populist circle, I am writing to you with a request... to present your view of terrorism. Your feedback is eagerly awaited in Russia. Everything that comes from your pen is always read and read with great interest, and your review at this time on such an important issue will bring undoubted benefit to young people, so its early appearance is extremely desirable. Whatever the size of the article, we will immediately print it either as a separate brochure or in the next issue of “Black Redistribution.”

P.L. Lavrov defined his attitude towards political terror as follows:

“Terror is an extremely dangerous weapon and remains dangerous in Russia; those who resort to it take on heavy responsibility. The Executive Committee of Narodnaya Volya took on this responsibility and was supported for a long time public opinion in Russia, attracted a significant number of its living forces. Whether he was mistaken or not, I do not dare to judge, since final failure is not proof of an error in the theory.”

After the death of Narodnaya Volya, its mistakes became more or less clear. They rightly included an excessive passion for terrorism. But Lavrov continued to consider Narodnaya Volya the most acceptable form of struggle. He failed to understand that changing conditions required new forms of struggle. What was truly revolutionary yesterday has become a mistake today. On this occasion, V.I. Lenin wrote:

“When history takes a sharp turn, even the leading parties for more or less a long time cannot get used to the new situation; they repeat slogans that were correct yesterday, but have lost all meaning today.”

This kind of dialectic of ideas and slogans turned out to be alien to Lavrov. That is why he misunderstood a lot, had a negative attitude towards Plekhanov’s “Emancipation of Labor” group, and for a long time did not see either opportunities or prospects in the development of the Social Democratic movement. Only at the end of his life did he overcome this mistake.

It is important to note that at a time when it seemed that the reaction had completely triumphed, when the revolutionary underground was suppressed with terrible cruelty, Lavrov continued the fight. In this regard, it is appropriate to recall the words of V.I. Lenin that

“A revolutionary is not the one who becomes revolutionary when the revolution comes, but the one who, in the midst of the greatest reaction, in the greatest hesitation of liberals and democrats, defends the principles and slogans of the revolution.”

Lavrov’s main field at this time was literary activity, criticism of decadent theories and reactionary doctrines. These goals were served by many of his speeches and, above all, by the article “The Teaching of Gr. L.N. Tolstoy." The article developed the ideas and traditions of the democratic press about Tolstoy. As highly as the democratic press rated Tolstoy as a writer, it was so critical of his teaching and work as a preacher. Published in the late 70s - early 80s, Tolstoy’s works “Confession”, “On Non-Resistance to Evil”, “What Is My Faith”, “Master and Worker” and others carried ideas dangerous to social progress. The theoretical positions, advice and thoughts about morality contained in these works by V.I. Lenin called “the anti-revolutionary side of Tolstoy’s teachings.” P. L. Lavrov, with the decisiveness appropriate for this case, came out with a consistent criticism of Tolstoy’s entire system of philosophical views. This speech was also important because after the closure of Otechestvennye Zapiski, Tolstoyism was not subjected to critical assessments from the standpoint of revolutionary democracy. Lavrov saw Tolstoyism as a temporary phenomenon and defined it as a kind of disease. The fight against painful phenomena in social life was complicated by the disorder of the revolutionary underground and discord in its ranks. An expression of this was the open renegadeism of L. Tikhomirov, who had long been considered an outstanding revolutionary. His pamphlet “Why I Stopped Being a Revolutionary?”, diligently distributed by the police throughout Russia, made a painful impression. In this situation, Lavrov rose to the occasion. He explained the reasons for Tikhomirov's fall and, with even greater persistence, continued to instill in the minds of young people the belief in the inevitability of the revolution and its inevitable victory. His propaganda of those years, his work during the period of reaction, are full of optimism, confidence that there are forces in Russia that will renew it.

In 1892–1896 P.L. Lavrov took part in the publication of the collections “Materials for the history of the Russian social revolutionary movement” and placed in them his articles “The History of Socialism and the Russian Movement” and “The Populists 1873–1878.” In the legal press, under various pseudonyms, he appeared in several publications, but especially a lot of his correspondence and articles were published in Russkie Vedomosti, one of the most progressive newspapers of that time. At the end of his life, in the late 90s, P.L. Lavrov prepared several works that were published under the pseudonyms “S. Arnoldi" and "A. Dolengi.” Among them, we should note “Tasks of understanding history”, “Who owns the future”, “Vital issues”. the main idea all these works are expressed in the following words:

“We, Russian people of all shades of love for the people, all ways of understanding their good, must each work in our own place with our own tools, strive for one goal, common to all and special for us, Russians. Here, a formidable responsibility lies with Russian youth, who are ready to enter the 20th century and who will have to create the history of this century.”

* * *

With the name P.L. Lavrov is connected with a whole direction of social development in post-reform Russia. His works served the cause of the revolutionary education of the people and largely retain scientific significance in our time, although the worldview of P.L. Lavrov was not characterized by dialectics. He was characterized by abstract thinking, doctrinaire conclusions, isolation from real life, and a lack of understanding of the forces of revolution that were maturing in the depths of Russia. This explains why Lavrov found himself behind the movement during the period of the activities of “Land and Freedom”, failed to understand the crisis of the Narodnaya Volya in the early 80s and was unable to appreciate historical meaning social democratic movement at its initial stage. But Lavrov’s teachings about the individual and the intelligentsia, about socialism, and especially his theory of morality contain deep thoughts that have scientific significance. Isolating these thoughts from utopias is an interesting and advisable task.

Svatikov S.G. Social movement in Russia. Rostov n/d, 1905; Bogucharsky V. Active populism of the 70s. M. 1912; Thun A. History of revolutionary movements in Russia (the book was published in 1882 and went through several editions, among them the most interesting for its applications was published in 1923); Kornilov A. Social movement under Alexander II. M., 1909; Glinsky B. Revolutionary period of Russian history. M., 1912; and many others.

Pajitnov K.A. Development of socialist ideas in Russia. T. 1. Kharkov, 1913. P. 142.

Pokrovsky M.N. Russian history in the most concise outline. M., 1934; His own. Russian historical literature in class light. M., 1935.

Knizhnik-Vetrov I.P.L. Lavrov. M., 1930; Gorev B. P. L. Lavrov and utopian socialism. // Under the banner of Marxism. 1923. No. 6-7.

Lavrov P.L. Selected works. T. 1. P. 199.

Right there. P. 202.

Right there. pp. 253-254.

Right there. P. 261.

Right there. P. 228.

The past. 1907. No. 2. P. 261.

G.A. Lopatin. Sat. Art. Pg., 1922. S. 161, 164. See also: Voice of the Past. 1915. No. 10; 1916. No. 4. G.A. Lopatin describes this event as follows: “At the beginning of 1870, I had to come to St. Petersburg from the Caucasus, from where I fled. Here I met the daughter of P.L. Lavrova - M.P. Negreskul, whose husband was at that time in the fortress on the Nechaev case. From M.P. Negreskul... I learned that Pyotr Lavrovich was terribly eager to escape from exile abroad... Having learned about Pyotr Lavrovich's desire to escape from exile, I immediately offered my services to his relatives... My duty was to take Lavrov away from exile and deliver him to St. Petersburg . Pyotr Lavrovich’s further journey abroad took place without my participation, exclusively with the assistance of his relatives.”

Right there. P. 12.. Ibid. P. 128.. Forward. 1874. No. 2. Section II. pp. 77, 78.

The concept of “populism”, which was established in literature and which we use now, is far from corresponding to what existed in those years. The following formula was the essence of populism in the understanding of the seventies: a revolutionary movement in the name of the conscious and direct demands of the people. The task of the Narodniks, therefore, was to place the revolutionary struggle on the basis of popular interests. Hence, the attitude towards the propaganda of abstract ideas of socialism changed. Agitation and propaganda by fact, deed, and life example were put in first place. One of the most famous figures of that time, A.D. Mikhailov, wrote: “People of this trend subordinated their theoretical ideals and sympathies to the urgent, acute needs of the people and therefore called themselves “populists” (Narodovolets A. Mikhailov. Collection of art. M.; Leningrad, 1925. P. 107).

Lavrov P.L. Populists propagandists. L., 1925. P. 258.

GA RF. F. 1762. Op. 1. D. 2. L. 7.

Right there. L. 8.

Right there. Op. 4. D. 175. L. 5.

Letter to comrades in Russia. Geneva, 1888. P. 18.

Lenin V.I. PSS. 5th ed. T. 34. P. 10.

Lenin V.I. PSS. 5th ed. T. 23. P. 309.

Lenin V.I. PSS. 5th ed. T. 20. P. 71.

Bulletin of the People's Will. Geneva, 1886. No. 5. P. 137.

Arnoldi S. Who owns the future. M., 1905. P. 225.

The defining principle of cognition and creativity Pyotr Lavrovich Lavrov(1823-1900) was scientific, scientific criticism.

Unlike the Marxists, who proceeded from objective criteria for assessing social phenomena and their restructuring, Lavrov paid more attention to the consciously purposeful activity of the individual aimed at transforming existing social relations and the social system. Trying to abstract from random subjectivism and voluntarism that distort reality, he substantiated the theory of ethical subjectivism, closely linking it with the theory of progress.

Lavrov associated the essence of political progress with “the elimination of any compulsory political agreement for individuals who agree with it, that is, with bringing the state element in society to a minimum.” This means, firstly, the destruction of separatist aspirations in the very bud; secondly, resolving the issue of the natural borders of states included in a single union; thirdly, bringing people together based on cultural and scientific interests.

Reflecting on political progress, Lavrov argued that the desire to assimilate and reunite foreign nationalities, destroying their characteristics, is an anti-progressive fact. Lavrov recognized the rights of oppressed peoples Russian Empire to self-determination, even to the point of separation from it. At the same time, the political state union, according to Lavrov, is a powerful factor in the struggle for progress.

With the increasing influence in society of bourgeois immoralism based on “private capital ruling over the proletariat and exacerbating the class struggle,” the modern bourgeois state becomes the most invincible enemy of socialism and the proletariat. Therefore, unlike the Lassalleans, who considered it sufficient to seize the bourgeois state and use it for their own purposes, Lavrov called for its destruction, since it “in its essence is domination, it is inequality, it is a restriction of freedom.” “A right-wing state is no longer conceivable without the victory of labor in its struggle with capital.”

In justifying his ideal of socialism, Lavrov was strongly influenced by Marx, but, unlike him, he saw the basis of the world socialist movement not in the development of economic relations, but in ideology, in the similarity of the ideologies of certain classes in different countries. According to his concept, “socialism appeared on the stage of history as a demand for the solidarity of all mankind,” therefore workers’ socialism is the doctrine of the solidarity of the proletariat of all countries. The specificity of the application of this theory to Russian conditions is that the urban working class has broad support, a social basis for the solidarity of all workers in the village community, which within its own framework carries out joint cultivation of the land and common use of the products of labor.

Depending on the socio-economic, legal and spiritual Russian traditions, Lavrov also defines the goals of socialism.

The main ones are public property, social labor, federation of workers, which are carried out by the working people under the leadership of a small group of well-organized intelligentsia.

Social justice can only be achieved through a socialist revolution that creates a people's federation of Russian communities. In his work “The State Element in the Future Society” (1876), Lavrov explains the reason for the proletariat’s turning to this only means by the fact that “the rulers of the world and the leaders of the modern state will not voluntarily yield their advantageous position to the working proletariat... There is no reconciliation between the modern state and workers’ socialism , there is no agreement and there cannot be." Lavrov was confident that socialism had a better chance in the struggle between the modern state and the workers; the victory of the proletariat was fatally predetermined.

Under socialism, Lavrov completely excludes any dictatorship, believing that “every dictatorship spoils the best people.” He does not even allow the idea that one person could have power in all spheres of public life. The largest personality will participate only in some forms of power and in an equally significant proportion of branches of public life will occupy subordinate positions. For each special case there will be its own elected authority.

The new model of “Russian socialism” proposed by Lavrov and the plan for its implementation on an ethical and scientific basis had a huge ideological influence on enthusiasts of the 70s. XIX century in the West and in Russia, ready to live and die for noble goals.

The revolutionary populists hoped that they could save the Russian people from the capitalist economic system, overthrowing the autocracy and landowners, and establishing people's power. By fighting for the liquidation of noble land ownership and the transfer of land to peasant communities, the populists thereby fought for a peasant-bourgeois solution to the agrarian problem.
Populism was based on faith in the communal system of the peasant economy, in the special way of Russian folk life. Idealizing the peasant community, the populists viewed it as the embryo of a future socialist society. At the same time, some ideologists of populism, in particular P.L. Lavrov, noted the significant role of capitalism in preparing the economic prerequisites for socialism.
A characteristic feature of the economic teachings of the revolutionary populists was the desire to change the existing system by raising the peasant masses to revolt. A large role in preparing peasants for the revolution was given to the enlightened part of the population - students and progressively minded intelligentsia. The populists of the 70s adopted the ideological heritage of N.G. Chernyshevsky, but also introduced new ideas into Russian economic thought. They gave an analysis of the new economic processes that arose as a result of the bourgeois peasant reform.
The ideologists of the main directions of revolutionary populism were M. A. Bakunin, P. L. Lavrov, P. N. Tkachev.
At the end of the 60s, in an atmosphere of hatred towards the tsar and the remnants of serfdom, inspired by faith in the revolutionary spirit of the people, circles of Nechaevites, Dolgushins and Bakuninists arose, whose representatives were convinced that it was only necessary to throw a spark into the people who had long been ready for revolution. Supporters of M.A. Bakunin considered the Russian people to be “born rebels” and relied on peasant revolts. This trend of revolutionary populism adhered to anarchist and rebellious tactics.
Supporters of P.L. Lavrov considered the main thing in preparing the revolution to be the propaganda of the ideas of socialism. However, Lavrov and a number of his followers, having become convinced that propaganda was hampered by the despotism of the tsarist political system, changed their tactics.
The ideas of conspiratorial tactics were developed by a representative of the third trend in populism, P. N. Tkachev. Tkachev’s supporters proceeded from the fact that the revolutionary intelligentsia cannot wait for a “nationwide revolt,” but must organize a revolutionary conspiracy and overthrow state power, supposedly “hanging in the air.”

Bakunism became a unique type of revolutionary populism in the second half of the 19th century. Its founder was Mikhail Aleksandrovich Bakunin (1814-1876). He went beyond the “noble revolutionism” of the Decembrists, and then Herzen, and became a revolutionary democrat. Bakunin was a defender of the peasants, firmly believing in the revolutionary impulses of the common people and hoping for the emergence of a new Pugachev in Rus'.
The popularity of M. A. Bakunin was explained by the fact that, while criticizing serfdom and tsarism, he called young people to revolution, and he himself participated in the revolution of 1848-1849. V Western Europe, was a prisoner of the Peter and Paul and Shlisselburg fortresses, a comrade-in-arms of Herzen and Ogarev, and advocated for the freedom and unity of the Slavic peoples. True, he put forward the slogans of anarchism, but in Russia the revolutionary democratic ideas and calls of Bakunin were perceived predominantly.
The main works of M. A. Bakunin: “The People’s Cause: Romanov, Pugachev, Pestel”, “Our Program”, “In Russia”, “Federalism and Socialism”, etc.
Bakunin's socio-economic views took shape in the context of preparations for the reform of 1861. Already in the 50s, he predicted the inability of the Russian government to carry out a reform that would truly improve the situation of the people. He argued that the shortcomings of the empire could not be addressed without affecting the interests of the government.
Criticism of capitalism, which was of a progressive nature, occupied a large place in Bakunin’s works. Exposing the bourgeois order, he used a number of provisions of K. Marx, set out in the first volume of Capital. Bakunin described class contradictions in bourgeois society, the ruthless exploitation of the people by the bourgeoisie, the prosperity of which, as he noted, is based “on poverty and on the economic slavery of the proletariat” 4 [Bakunin M.A. Knuto-German Empire and Social Revolution // Izbr. op. T. 2. M.; Pg., 1919. S. 26-27]. Bakunin's views on property were predetermined by his theory of the abolition of the right of inheritance. Bakunin waged a constant struggle with the defenders of capitalist society, emphasizing the class character of bourgeois science. Debunking the demagogic slogans of the bourgeoisie about freedom, he revealed the true essence of bourgeois freedoms: this is “nothing more than the opportunity to exploit the labor of workers by the power of capital” 5 [Bakunin M.A. Sleepers // Ibid. T. 4. P. 34]. He considered the source of “people's wealth” to be “people's labor”, which was given over to the plunder of stock exchange speculators, swindlers, rich owners and capitalists.
Bakunin wrote about the division of labor into mental and physical and believed that in the future society people of mental labor “will turn... the discoveries and applications of science for the benefit of everyone and, above all, for the facilitation and ennoblement of labor, this only legitimate and real basis of human society” b [Bakunin M.A. Comprehensive education//Ibid. P. 49-50]. He advocated the organization of a “large community” in a future socialist society.
Bakunin's trend in populism had an anarchist overtones. Bakunin transferred his hatred of the tsarist monarchy and the bourgeois states of Western Europe to the state in general, declaring that any power gives rise to exploitation. Advocating the revolutionary destruction of the state, he pictured socialism as a free federation of workers' associations and agricultural communities, based on self-government and absolute individual freedom. Driving force Bakunin considered the revolutionary upheaval to be the peasantry, as well as the urban poor and declassed elements. Since, in his opinion, the people are always ready for an uprising, the impetus for the start of the revolution should be given by rebel revolutionaries. In the mid-60s, Bakunin created the anarchist organization “International Alliance of Socialist Democracy”, which in 1868 was admitted to the First International. In 1872, Bakunin and members of his organization were expelled from the First International for subversive activities.
In Russian conditions, Bakunin's revolutionary-democratic concepts were directed against serfdom and tsarist autocracy and were of a progressive nature. But in Western Europe, in countries with a developed labor movement, his anarchism acquired reactionary features. K. Marx and F. Engels revealed the bourgeois; the essence of anarchist theories. V.I. Lenin described Bakunism as one of the forms of non-proletarian pre-Marx socialism, generated by the despair of the petty bourgeoisie.

Pyotr Nikitich Tkachev (1844-1885) is a representative of the third direction of revolutionary populism, who pinned his hopes on achieving a social revolution through the seizure of power, a political revolution and the establishment of a dictatorship of a “revolutionary minority.” A defender of the interests of the peasantry, which traditionally adheres to the “principles of communal ownership,” Tkachev nevertheless believed that it could not play an active role in the social revolution. In this he disagreed with both the adherents of Bakunin and the supporters of Lavrov, who believed that the revolution would be carried out by the masses themselves. In 1861, for revolutionary activities, Tkachev was expelled from the university and in 1873 emigrated to Western Europe, where he collaborated in the magazine “Forward!”, and after the break with P. L. Lavrov, he published the magazine “Alarm” (1875-1881) . In his works “Statistical Essays on Russia”, “From Velikiye Luki”, “A Man in the Salons of Modern Fiction”, Tkachev subjected a devastating criticism to the economic backwardness of feudal Russia. Based on statistical data, he revealed the reasons for the plight of the peasantry, which he saw in extremely low productivity peasant labor. Speaking from a traditionally populist position, Tkachev idealized the peasant community and hoped that its improvement and further development would enable Russia to avoid “the pitiful fate of capitalist Western Europe.
In a number of places, Tkachev correctly stated the inevitability of capitalism in Russia, but continued to look for ways of non-capitalist development. The name of the magazine “Alarm” fully corresponded to the tasks of Tkachev, who was going to save Russia through revolution, until capitalism covered the entire socio-economic system of the country 19 [See: Tkachev P.N. What to do now? // Favorites op. T. 3. M„ 1932. P. 344] The accomplishment of this task seemed quite realistic to Tkachev, since he proceeded from the erroneous opinion that the tsarist government did not have a solid basis in Russia.
Tkachev's economic views on Western European capitalism represent a peculiar combination of correct ideas that reflected the influence of the works of N. G. Chernyshevsky, partly K. Marx, and the views of bourgeois political economy. Tkachev considered the “economic factor” the most important condition development of society and attached great importance to the economic struggle of individual classes, for “all modern Western European economic practice rests on competition, just as medieval practice rests on feudal land ownership” 20 [Tkachev P. N. Review of the book by N. Rozhdestvensky “On the significance of D.S. Mill // Ibid. T. 5. M., 1935. P. 320]. Tkachev had a psychological interpretation of competition: he concluded that it would not exist under socialism only because it was unreasonable.
Tkachev considered some categories of political economy. He found the basis of life and development of society in work, believing that “only work determines general happiness and well-being” 21 [See: Tkachev P. N. Review of Becher’s book “The Work Question” // Ibid. P. 444]. Tkachev constantly noted the existence of a contradiction between labor and capital under capitalism. He noted the exploitative nature of profit and argued that labor underlies the value of every object. However, Tkachev was confronted by the difficulties of measuring the quantity and quality of labor, which led him to attempt to determine value using the vulgar theory of supply and demand.
Unlike Bakunin, Tkachev assigned an important role to the state after the victory of the revolution, although he erroneously justified it by the inability of the people for independent revolutionary creativity.
In general, Tkachev's ideas were progressive for their time. He called for an anti-feudal revolution and outlined its program, although he often wrote about socialism. F. Engels, who criticized Tkachev’s populist views, noted, however, that they had a great influence on the program and tactics of the revolutionary organization “People's Will”. V.I. Lenin wrote that the attempt of the Narodnaya Volya to seize power, prepared by Tkachev’s sermon, was majestic.
After the 70s, populism, due to changes in the historical situation in post-reform Russia, and primarily the social nature of the peasantry, developed in two directions: one degenerated into petty-bourgeois liberalism, the other evolved towards social democracy.

The prominent economist V.V. Bervi (pseud. N. Flerovsky) (1829-1918) was close to the revolutionary populists in his economic views. He was the author of more than 50 works on socio-economic problems, the most important of which are “The Situation of the Working Class in Russia” (1869), “The ABC of Social Sciences” (1871), “Tax Reform and Public Institutions of Justice” (1871), “Three Political systems" (1897), etc. For his revolutionary activities, Bervi-Flerovsky was repeatedly arrested.
The economic views of V.V. Bervi were quite contradictory. Thus, under the influence of populism, he decisively defended the interests of the peasantry, opposed the oppression of the landowners and the remnants of serfdom. In his opinion, capitalism in Russia was an accidental phenomenon, the development of which could be stopped by strengthening the decaying rural community.
It should be noted that Bervi-Flerovsky criticized landownership, like Chernyshevsky, from the position of the working peasantry 22[Bervi-Flerovsky V.V. Worker of Agricultural Russia // Izbr. econ. prod. T. 1. M., 1958. P. 285]. But Bervy was often inclined towards moderate reforms, such as the redemption of landowners’ lands, the imposition of a progressive tax on landowners, the prohibition of the right of inheritance, etc. While advocating for the preservation of the rural community, he at the same time saw its decomposition and wanted to save this “great principle” for Russia.
Bervy-Flerovsky sharply criticized capitalism, drawing attention to the plight of workers and the irreconcilability of class contradictions between workers and capitalists. He saw the progressiveness of large-scale production, spoke about the growth of labor productivity and at the same time showed the negative impact of large-scale capitalist production on the position of the working class.
Bervi-Flerovsky’s work “The Situation of the Working Class in Russia” contains a wealth of factual material. It shows the state of industry, handicrafts and agriculture. Flerovsky very accurately described the difficult, powerless situation of the peasantry and factory workers. He stated that capitalism, like feudalism, is an anti-people society. This book was highly praised by K. Marx, who believed that this was the first work “that conveys the truth about the economic situation in Russia.” Generally approving of Flerovsky's work, Marx emphasized in a letter to Engels that it was the most significant book after The Condition of the Working Class in England. Marx also saw the shortcomings of Bervy-Flerovsky’s book, pointing out that “in some places it does not fully satisfy criticism from a purely theoretical point of view”, “in some places there is a small dose of complacent idle talk” 23 [See: K. Marx, F. Engels . Op. 16. pp. 427-428; T. 32. P. 357-358].
One of these shortcomings is the idealization of small-scale production, Proudhonian illusions about the main role of monetary credit, about the possibility of partnership relations between workers and capitalists. As a petty-bourgeois socialist, Bervi-Flerovsky dreamed of a new, fair society and emphasized the unique development of Russia. The final ideal of Bervy-Flerovsky was a communist society in which there is no exploitation, labor is the main condition for the existence of all citizens, collective property prevails, high labor productivity ensures an abundance of products and their distribution according to needs. These ideas are intertwined with petty-bourgeois illusions and utopian hopes for a transition to a just society through reforms and educational activities of the state aimed at all classes. But Bervi-Flerovsky has statements about the inadequacy of peaceful methods of fighting the existing system. Thus, in the work “Three Political Systems” there are proposals in favor of revolutionary methods of struggle. The author says that a real constitution can only be achieved by the hands of the working people and at the expense of the blood of this people.

REVOLUTIONARY DEMOCRATIC THOUGHT OF THE PEOPLES OF RUSSIA.

In the 19th century in the Baltic states, the process of transition from feudalism to capitalism was accompanied by ruin and extreme impoverishment of the peasantry, which in turn led to a powerful upsurge of class struggle. One of the main demands of the peasants was to obtain land. Therefore, the attention of progressive figures of that time was focused on criticism of feudal relations.
Lithuania. The revolutionary-democratic direction in economic thought was formed here in the 30s of the 19th century. Methodological basis his was the doctrine of “natural law.”
The Lithuanian revolutionary democrat S. Daukantas (1783-1864) thoroughly criticized the system of feudal exploitation. He believed that feudal relations contradicted natural law and common sense. Daukantas tried to show that these relations in Lithuania are a temporary phenomenon. At the same time, it was emphasized that National economy Lithuania fell into decline, and society was divided into rich and poor. The decline of economic life, the Lithuanian thinker wrote, led the country to political disintegration.
S. Daukantas tried to find out the reasons that contributed to the penetration of feudalism into Lithuania. He identified two main ones: 1) the desire of some people to dominate others and appropriate the work of others (innate egoism) and 2) foreign interference. Although Daukantas idealized the communal system, he emphasized that only those people are free who can enjoy the fruits of their labor, for labor is the creator of all human values. S. Daukantas, looking at different kinds labor activity, devoted significant space to the analysis of trade, since it contributes to the exchange of goods. He recognized the emergence of money as the highest achievement of economic development. “Money in trade is like blood in the human body,” wrote S. Daukantas. However, money is not an end in itself; it is only a means of exchange. S. Daukantas described the history of the emergence of money, showing its importance in the life of society 10.
After the defeat of the uprising of 1830-1831. some of its participants - I. Goštautas (1800-1871), K. Zabitis-Nezabitauskis (1779-1837) and others - analyzed the reasons for the defeat and formulated a new program. These revolutionary democrats devoted all their creative energy to the analysis of social problems. Considering the national question to be part of the social question, they declared that without the destruction of feudal relations it was impossible to achieve national liberation. Thus, I. Goštautas sharply condemned serfdom and called the system in which one person is the property of another terrible. Goštautas is deeply convinced that the peasants did not actively participate in the uprising of 1830-1831, because its leaders did not announce their intention to abolish serfdom. He criticized the feudal tax system, since the entire burden of taxes fell on the poorer sections of society, and advocated for a fair tax, because those who have more income should give more to the state treasury.
A similar concept was developed by K. Zabitis-Nezabitauskis. He believed that social inequality is the result of the evil will of people; the monarchical system does not correspond to common sense and is unable to ensure the freedom of citizens. Zabitis-Nezabitauskis sought to prove that the slave system and feudalism can exist only if everything in the country is based on the tyranny of monarchism and absolutism. When people understand their natural rights, they will rise up in arms against despotism and tyranny will be destroyed for all time. Then people will live like brothers.
In the 60s of the XIX century. The revolutionary-democratic current of economic thought in Lithuania paid a lot of attention to the practical side of affairs, accepting the economic concepts then popular in Western Europe and Russia. The ideas of Russian revolutionary democrats had a particularly serious influence.
On the eve of the uprising of 1863-1864. its future leaders M. Akelaitis, J. Daukshis, S. Sierakovsky were well acquainted with the ideas of Russian revolutionary democrats, some of them (M. Akelaitis, S. Serakovsky) maintained personal contacts with A. Herzen and N. Chernyshevsky, and Serakovsky collaborated in Sovremennik.
Lithuanian revolutionary democrats actively studied social problems, the solution of which, in their opinion, would contribute to the growth of the revolutionary self-awareness of the masses. True, they mistakenly believed that relationships between people are determined by the degree of their education. This was strongly influenced by the ideas of French enlighteners. Sierakowski was confident that society was developing, but unevenly. In one country, due to the growing level of education, he believed, social reforms are being carried out, in another this is not observed. In this case, a revolutionary struggle is necessary. The revolutionary consciousness of the masses, he declared, is the fruit of painstaking educational work. Apart from Sierakowski, this opinion was also shared by M. Akelaitis, J. Daukšys and others. There was no clear idea of ​​what the social system should be in the event of a victory in the uprising. Thus, S. Sierakovsky advocated socialism, but did not give a clear formulation of what was meant by socialism.
Latvia. The revolutionary democrats of the early 60s here were associated with the Land and Freedom organization. They wanted to unite the peasant movement in Latvia with the revolutionary action of Lithuanian and Polish peasants.
Latvian revolutionary democrats agitated the peasants to rise up against the landowners in the vicinity of Valmiera, Cesis, Smiltene, Vecpiebalga. For this purpose, handwritten proclamations and pamphlets were distributed, which spoke about the powerless situation of the peasantry.
The most famous Latvian revolutionary democrat was Peter Ballod (1839-1918). His views can be judged by the proclamations he wrote. Thus, during the arrest, an article “Warning” was discovered, written in the hand of P. Ballod. It emphasized that a peasant revolution was approaching in Russia, that the revolution was being made by the masses 11 [See: Valeskaln P.I. Revolutionary democrat Pyotr Davydovich Ballod. Riga, 1957. P. 60].
P. Ballod wrote and reproduced the proclamation “Officers” in 1862, in which he called on officers to go over to the side of the revolution. In it, he briefly outlines his views on the tasks of social reconstruction in Russia. “Every Russian knows that for the good of his homeland it is necessary: ​​to free the peasants with the land, giving the landowners a reward, to free the people from officials, from whips and rods; give all classes equal rights to develop their well-being; give society the freedom to manage its own affairs, establish laws and taxes through its elected representatives” 12[Ibid. P. 47].
The program of economic and political reforms outlined by P. Ballod was close to the program contained in the proclamation “Young Russia” of 1862. As is known from the memoirs of P. Ballod, he was familiar with this program and supported the ideas set out in it.
K. Marx, F. Engels in their work “The Alliance of Socialist Democracy and the International Workers' Association” highly appreciated this program. They wrote: “This manifesto contained a clear and exact description the internal situation of the country, the state of various parties... and, proclaiming communism, drew the conclusion about the need for a social revolution" 13 [Marx K., Engels F. Soch. T. 18. P. 433].
Estonia. Mass peasant movement in the second quarter of the 19th century. activated progressive social thought in Estonia.
Johann Christopher Petri (1762-1851) criticized the feudal system for its economic unprofitability and low productivity. Petri defended the interests of the peasants. He demanded their complete liberation and was a supporter of revolutionary methods of struggle 14 [See: Essays on the history of economic thought in Estonia in the 19th century. Tallinn, 1956. S. 38, 42, 43].
In the second half of the last century, the struggle of peasants for land intensified even more. This was also reflected in the economic concepts of progressive thinkers in Estonia. Thus, the activities of the democrat Johann Köhler (1828-1899) since the 60s were inextricably linked with the struggle for peasant interests. He saw the main reason for the difficult situation of the peasants in landlessness, emphasizing that land is the historical property of the Baltic peasantry 15[Literary Museum of the ESSR. Department of Manuscripts, f. 69, d. 13/7, l. 25; f. 69, d. 14/6, l. 8]. Later, he proposed purchasing leased peasant lands with state money, transferring them to the peasants, or establishing lower land prices that were obligatory for landowners, as well as reducing rental rates.
Democrat Carl Robert Jacobson (1841 -1882) went even further in his demands. In the newspaper Sakala, which he published, he fought both against the landowners and their allies among the Estonian bourgeoisie. In his political program, Jacobson prioritized the struggle against the Baltic nobility with the goal of completely destroying their power.
In Jacobson's economic views, the agrarian problem occupies the main place. He acted as a defender of the interests of rural small producers, being convinced that agriculture was the most important branch of production. He developed this idea several times. His economic program was based on the needs of the peasantry, condemned the “Prussian path” of development of capitalism, and considered the ideal a small producer independent of the landowner 16 [See: K. R. Yakobson. Science and law on the field. St. Petersburg, 1869. S. 12, 6]. Jacobson dreamed of allocating land to all peasants, including farm laborers and farmers, and sought the most favorable conditions for the purchase of land for peasants. The main point of his program was the requirement to standardize the maximum price for peasant plots. Jacobson insisted on selling land in small plots and was a supporter of internal colonization. He fought against the feudal redemption of peasant plots, as well as against all noble privileges (freedom from taxation, hunting rights, etc.).
In Jacobson's economic views important place focused on issues of agricultural technology. He was a supporter of the growth of commercial agriculture. He owns a number of brochures and articles devoted to agriculture 17 [See: Kabin A.K.R. Jacobson as the leader of the Estonian peasants. Tallinn, 1933. P. 88]. Jacobson pointed out the need to supply peasants with agricultural implements and called for the creation of peasant societies to fight against the landowners. In fact, he was a supporter of the “American way” of the development of capitalism in agriculture. Great importance Jacobson attached importance to the development of trade and navigation, since he saw them primarily as industries serving Agriculture. Jacobson, noting some of the contradictions inherent in capitalism, came to the conclusion that bourgeois development is not harmonious, but did not go so far as to criticize the economic system of capitalism 18[Sakala. 1881. No. 34. P. 49]. Yakobson hoped to eliminate the contradictions between the owners and the farm laborers by educating the latter; he demanded that the owners treat their workers humanely 19 [See: Yakobson K.R. Decree. op. S. 17, 18].
The economic views of K. R. Yakobson reflected the interests of the peasantry, which had already become involved in commodity production during the transition from feudalism to capitalism.

4. Kazakhstan an and Central Asia.

Economic ideas that affected the interests of the people and expressed the ideology of various classes were not represented in Kazakhstan and Central Asia independent science. Economic thought had not yet separated from general knowledge about society; there were no special works on the history of economic thought. And yet, the statements of progressive figures, reports of rulers, diaries of travelers, materials from periodicals are valuable sources of economic thought of the peoples of the region in question.
Kazakhstan. The founder of socio-economic thought in Kazakhstan is the outstanding Kazakh educator and democrat Ch. Valikhanov, who adopted the advanced ideas of Russian educators and revolutionaries. The democratic ideas put forward by Ch. Valikhanov were developed and continued by other Kazakh democrats - the poet Abai Kunanbayev and public figure Ibrai Altynsarin.
Chokan Valikhanov (1835-1865) was an original thinker who tried to explain social processes in his own way and apply the principles of economic theory to the conditions of Kazakhstan. However, he did not accept the revolutionary theory of Russian revolutionary democrats and had high hopes for reforms. The Kazakh educator considered the most important reforms to be economic and social, directly related to the urgent needs of the people 40 [See: Valikhanov Ch. Collection. op. T. I. Alma-Ata, 1961. P. 495].

Populism as a special ideological and political trend in Russian political and legal thought arose under the influence of public dissatisfaction with the results of the peasant reform of 1861. The initial principles of the populist program were the denial of capitalism as a decadent social system and the recognition of the self-sufficiency of the communal peasant life capable of reform and progress with the help of a revolutionary populist party. The mass “going to the people” of democratically minded, enlightened youth in 1874 revealed the organizational weakness of the populist movement and the urgent need for a unified party organization. Such an organization was created under the name “Land and Freedom” (1876) and subsequently split into two independent organizations: the terrorist and conspiratorial “People’s Will” and the radical reformist organization “Black Redistribution”. The theoretical justification for the programs of revolutionary populism was made in the works of foreign ideologues and publicists of the three main directions in populism - propaganda (Lavrov), conspiratorial (Tkachev) and rebellious (Bakunin).

Petr Lavrovich Lavrov(1823-1900), head of the magazine “Forward”, main and the most important task Socialists in Russia considered rapprochement with the people to “prepare a coup that would bring about a better future.” In contrast to the Bakuninists, who relied on spontaneity and “solving by guessing” those complex and difficult tasks that arise during the “establishment of a new social system,” Lavrov attached particular importance to strict and strengthened personal training a socialist to useful activities, his ability to win the trust of the people, his ability to help the people (in explaining the people's needs and in preparing the people for independent and conscious activity).

The moment of the people’s readiness for a coup should “be indicated by the very course of historical events.” And only after such an indication - an indication of the very minute of the coup - can socialists “consider themselves entitled to call on the people to carry out this coup.” So in the early 70s. Among Russian socialists there was a division into “Bakunists” and “Vperyodists” (Lavrists). Lavrov began as an associate of N.G. Chernyshevsky, was related to the first “Land and Freedom”, was a member of the First International and one of the founders of the Second International, participated in the affairs of the Paris Commune and “Narodnaya Volya”.

In the extensive literary heritage of the philosopher and leader of political emigration, the work “The State Element in the Future Society” (1875-1876) is of particular interest. Lavrov is most interested in the differences between state and society, as well as questions regarding “to what extent the state element can exist with the development of workers' socialism in its final goal and in preparing this goal; to what extent this element may be inevitable in a future society or during the period of preparation and implementation of the revolution, and also to what extent the habits of individuals developed in the old society may determine its futile and harmful introduction into the organization of the revolutionary party, into the final revolutionary struggle, and finally into the system itself a society that workers’ socialism will have to build on the ruins of social forms that must be destroyed.”

The modern state, according to Lavrov, is one of the most powerful and dangerous enemies of the cause of socialism. And a significant part of the struggle of “organizing workers’ socialism” is directed against it. However, he notes, there is no consensus among socialists as to the extent to which the future society will have to renounce the “modern state tradition.” The Lassalleans reduced the fight against the modern state only to seizing it, as it is, into their own hands and using its available funds for their own purposes, including the suppression of the “enemies of the proletariat.” Another problem is related to the fact that the International, both in its programmatic goals and in its practical activities, looks like something like a state, in particular “a state of a special kind, namely A state without territory, With the central power of the General Council, with ramifications subordinate to it in federal councils, in local councils, in the central bodies of unions of homogeneous crafts, extended to different countries, and finally, in the elementary social cells of the new system, in sections. This grandiose idea of ​​a world political union of the proletariat with a strong organization has received opposition from various sides.”

The most powerful opposition came from organizations within the International, especially the secret alliance organized by Mikhail Bakunin and part of the open “International Alliance of Socialist Democracy” until its exposure at the Hague Congress of the International in 1872. Lavrov calls the secret alliance an alliance that assumed “a more centralistic, More state power, What did the General Council (of the International) represent it, borrowing from the former all the means of secret conspiracies, all the techniques of secret state offices for the fight against enemies.” Thus, it is the anarchists, who so diligently talk about the need for “the final eradication of the principle of authority (power),” who have already begun to create the very “energetic power in the environment of modern socialism.”

Answering the main question of your research - to what extent can the state (state element) coexist with workers' socialism? - Lavrov argued that the current state cannot become an instrument for the triumph of workers’ socialism. Therefore, in order to implement a social system according to its needs, workers' socialism must destroy the modern state and create something else.

Lavrov can also be considered the author of one of the early versions of the 20th century dystopia, which was written in the form of a dialogue about the future state and describes the model of a “knowing state”, where pervasive control state power provided by an all-knowing police force using the latest inventions of science and technology.

For Russian populists of the 70-80s. there was nothing more important and at the same time more problematic than the question of ways for the people to gain freedom and radically reconstruct the old world from the foundation to the buildings towering above it. The all-determining slogan, as historian V. Bogucharsky put it, was “To the people!”

Why and for what? To Teach Him in order to learn from him, in order to find out on the spot his needs and requirements, in order to experience his suffering for himself, to gain his trust, in order to “bring him to the consciousness of the best, fairest social order and the need to fight for this system,” in order to “ignite the revolutionary passions existing in it and thereby arouse it immediately to a general uprising.” However, police and judicial repression followed. The surviving scattered circles gathered in 1876 in St. Petersburg and created the “Land and Freedom” society. Two years later, this society was divided, and the Narodnaya Volya party, which arose on the basis of this division, proclaimed as its program goal a change in the political system, partly by winning political freedoms, but most of all by carrying out practical political terror.

The Narodnaya Volya considered themselves socialists and indicated in their program documents that only at the socialist beginning can humanity realize freedom, equality, fraternity in its life, ensure general material well-being and complete all-round development of the individual, and therefore progress. With all the obvious confusion of revolutionary slogans of the 18th century. with the ideas of the utopian socialists of the post-revolutionary period, the programs of the Narodnaya Volya were reflected in a new, compared to the Narodniks of the 60s, understanding of social problems (combining the peasant question with the labor question), awareness of the inferiority of previous programs (Bakunin's rebellious anarchism, Nechaev's barracks despotism) and the proclamation of the task more thorough discussion of the “future form of social order.”

The problems of the constitutional structure of Russia in the center and locally, as well as the issues of the struggle for the political and economic liberation of individual estates and classes in their connection with people's freedom and socialism as the most important goals of the social revolution, began to be understood and solved in a new way. A prominent role in the discussion on these issues was played by the “Political Letters of a Socialist”, published in the Narodnaya Volya newspaper by a famous publicist N. K. Mikhailovsky Under the pseudonym of a political emigrant, “a Russian who has suffered from all Russian diseases” and is observing the course of events from Switzerland. Mikhailovsky wrote: “In our country, political freedom must be proclaimed before the bourgeoisie is so united and strengthened that it does not need an autocratic tsar... The constitutional regime is a question of tomorrow in Russia. This tomorrow will not bring a solution to the social issue. But do you really want to fold your arms tomorrow?.. Live forever, fight forever!”

The most typical position seems to be that defended on this issue Andrey Ivanovich Zhelyabov(1851 - 1881). He said: “The land and tools of labor must belong to the whole people, and every worker has the right to use them... The state structure must be based on the union agreement of all communities... Personal freedom of man, i.e. freedom of opinion, research and all activities , will remove the shackles from the human mind and give it full freedom. The freedom of the community, i.e. its right, together with all communities and unions, to intervene in state affairs and direct them according to the common desire of all communities, will not allow state oppression to arise, will not allow immoral people to take the country into their hands and ruin it in as various rulers and officials and suppressed the freedom of the people, as is being done now.”

He was also a theoretician of populism. Petr Nikitich Tkachev(1844–1885). Since 1875, he published (in Geneva) the magazine “Alarm” with the epigraph: “Now, or very soon, perhaps never!”

Unlike other populists, Tkachev argued that forms of bourgeois life were already emerging in Russia, destroying the “principle of community.” Today the state is a fiction that has no roots in people’s life, Tkachev wrote, but tomorrow it will become constitutional and will receive the powerful support of the united bourgeoisie. Therefore, we cannot waste time on propaganda and preparing the revolution, as the “propagandists” (Lavrov’s supporters) suggest. “Such moments are not frequent in history,” Tkachev wrote about the state of Russia. “To miss them means to voluntarily delay the possibility of social revolution for a long time, perhaps forever.” “The revolutionary does not prepare, but “makes” the revolution.” At the same time, it is useless to call the people to revolt, especially in the name of communism, which is alien to the ideals of the Russian peasantry. Contrary to the opinion of the “rebels” (Bakunin’s supporters), anarchy is an ideal of the distant future; it is impossible without first establishing the absolute equality of people and educating them in the spirit of universal brotherhood. Now anarchy is an absurd and harmful utopia.

The task of revolutionaries is to accelerate the process of social development; “It can accelerate only when the advanced minority has the opportunity to subordinate the rest of the majority to its influence, i.e. when it seizes state power into its own hands.”

A party of mentally and morally developed people, i.e. minority must gain material strength through a violent coup. “The immediate goal of the revolution must be to seize political power, in the creation of a revolutionary state. But the seizure of power, being a necessary condition for revolution, is not yet a revolution. This is just her foreplay. The revolution is carried out by the revolutionary state.”

Tkachev explained the need for a revolutionary state led by a minority party by the fact that communism is not the popular ideal of the peasantry in Russia. The historically established system of the peasant community creates only the preconditions for communism, but the path to communism is unknown and alien to the people's ideal. This path is known only to the minority party, which, with the help of the state, must correct the backward ideas of the peasantry about the people's ideal and lead it along the road to communism: “The people are not able to build such a thing on the ruins of the old world.” new world“, which would be able to progress, develop in the direction of the communist ideal,” Tkachev wrote, “therefore, in building this new world, he cannot and should not play any outstanding, leading role. This role and this significance belong exclusively to the revolutionary minority.”

Tkachev disputed the widespread opinion among populists about the corrupting influence of power on statesmen. Robespierre, Danton, Cromwell, Washington, having power, did not become worse for this; as for the Napoleons and Caesars, they were corrupted long before they came to power. In his opinion, a sufficient guarantee of serving the good of the people would be the communist convictions of members of the ruling party.

With the help of the revolutionary state, the ruling party will suppress the overthrown classes, re-educate the conservative majority in the communist spirit and carry out reforms in the field of economic, political, legal relations (“revolution from above”). Among these reforms, Tkachev named the gradual transformation of communities into communes, the socialization of the instruments of production, the elimination of intermediation in exchange, the elimination of inequality, the destruction of the family (based on inequality), the development of community self-government, the weakening and abolition of the central functions of state power.

Anarchist theorist M.A. was also a recognized ideologist of populism. Bakunin (see § 3). He believed that Russia and in general Slavic countries can become the center of a nationwide, all-tribal, international social revolution. The Slavs, in contrast to the Germans, do not have a passion for state order and state discipline. In Russia, the state openly opposes the people: “Our people deeply and passionately hate the state, hate all its representatives, no matter in what form they appear before them.”

Bakunin wrote that among the Russian people there are “ the necessary conditions social revolution. He can boast of extreme poverty, as well as exemplary slavery. His sufferings are endless, and he endures them not patiently, but with deep and passionate despair, which has already been expressed twice historically, in two terrible explosions: the rebellion of Stenka Razin and the Pugachev rebellion, and which has not ceased to manifest itself to this day in a continuous series of private peasant revolts.”

Based on the basic principles of the theory of “Russian socialism,” Bakunin wrote that the basis of the Russian folk ideal lies in three main features: firstly, the conviction that all land belongs to the people, and secondly, that the right to use it belongs not to the individual, but the whole community, the world; thirdly (no less important than the two previous features), “community self-government and, as a result, a decidedly hostile attitude of the community towards the state.”

At the same time, Bakunin warned, the Russian folk ideal also has obscuring features that slow down its implementation: 1) patriarchy, 2) absorption of the person by the world, 3) faith in the Tsar. The Christian faith can be added as a fourth feature, Bakunin wrote, but in Russia this issue is not as important as in Western Europe. Therefore, social revolutionaries should not put the religious question at the forefront of propaganda, since religiosity among the people can only be killed by social revolution. Its preparation and organization - the main task friends of the people, educated youth calling the people to a desperate rebellion. “We need to suddenly raise all the villages.” This task, Bakunin noted, is not easy.

To everyone popular uprising in Russia, the isolation of communities, solitude and separation of peasant local worlds are prevented. It is necessary, observing the most pedantic caution, to connect with each other the best peasants of all villages, volosts, and, if possible, regions, to establish the same living connection between factory workers and peasants. Bakunin came up with the idea of ​​a national newspaper to promote revolutionary ideas and organize revolutionaries.

Calling on educated youth to promote, prepare and organize a nationwide revolt, Bakunin emphasized the need to act according to a strictly thought-out plan, on the basis of the strictest discipline and secrecy. At the same time, the organization of social revolutionaries must be hidden not only from the government, but also from the people, since the free organization of communities should emerge as a result of the natural development of social life, and not under any external pressure. Bakunin sharply condemned doctrinaires who sought to impose on the people political and social schemes, formulas and theories developed outside the life of the people. Related to this are his rude attacks against Lavrov, who put the task of scientific propaganda at the forefront and envisioned the creation of a revolutionary government to organize socialism.

Bakunin's followers were called “rebels” in the populist movement. They began to circulate among the people, trying to clarify the consciousness of the people and induce them to spontaneous rebellion. The failure of these attempts led to the fact that the Bakuninist rebels were supplanted (but not supplanted) by “propagandists” or “Lavrists”, who set the task not of pushing the people to revolution, but of systematic revolutionary propaganda, enlightenment, and training in the villages of conscious fighters for the social revolution.

LAVROV, PETER LAVROVICH(1823–1900) – Russian philosopher, sociologist, publicist, theorist of revolutionary populism. Nicknames - Arnoldi, Dolengi, Kedrov, Mirtov, Stoik, Stoletov, about 60 in total.

Born on June 2, 1823 in the village of Melikhovo, Velikolutsk district. Pskov province in a family of hereditary nobles. Having received a home education, he entered the St. Petersburg Artillery School, where he was considered the best student of M. Ostrogradsky, academician of military sciences. After graduating from college in 1842, he remained with him as a tutor, then as a mathematics teacher. In 1844–1846 he taught mathematical subjects at military institutions in St. Petersburg.

The revolutions of 1848–1849 in European countries became an incentive for Lavrov’s spiritual maturation. Under their influence, he wrote a number of anti-government poems ( Prophecy, To the Russian people), which he sent to London to A.I. Herzen, who immediately published them. Encyclopedically educated, in 1852 he began publishing articles on military technology, physical and mathematical sciences, natural science, pedagogy, and philosophy. He lived by literary work and teaching history and foreign languages as a home teacher, having lost his inheritance due to a quarrel with his father (he was dissatisfied with his marriage to a widow with two children).

Since 1857 he collaborated in the St. Petersburg publications “Domestic Notes”, “Library for Reading”, “ Russian word" His articles on controversial issues of our time were published in Herzen’s “Bell”, in which Lavrov wrote about the need to abolish serfdom and improve the situation of peasants .

In 1858 he was promoted to colonel, received the academic degree of professor, and became assistant editor of the Artillery Journal. As part of the development of his own “practical philosophy”, the basis of which was, in his words, “anthropologism” as a universal philosophical understanding of the world, based on criticism of religious idealism and focused on man as a part of the universe, his articles were published: Hegelism(1858), Essays on issues of practical philosophy: personality (1860), Three conversations about modern meaning philosophy (1861).

In 1861 he took part in editing Encyclopedic Dictionary, compiled by Russian scientists and writers; soon became its editor-in-chief. Lavrov’s rapprochement with N.G. Chernyshevsky, N.K. Mikhailovsky and other revolutionary democrats, including the creators of the first organization “Land and Freedom,” dates back to this time.

Having disagreed with the ideologists of Sovremennik on philosophical issues, Lavrov took part in actions organized and carried out by them: he spoke at a student meeting in 1861, signed public protests against the arrest of the populist M. L. Mikhailov, and against the draft university charter, which deprived universities of the right to autonomy. In the same year, he became one of the organizers and elders of the literary “Chess Club”, which became the center of meetings of the liberal intelligentsia.

In 1862 he became close to Chernyshevsky and N.V. Shelgunov, but did not approve of their attempts to call the peasants to revolution (“To the axe!”), considering it possible to peacefully achieve “harmony of interests of the individual from the ruling class and the interests of the majority of the subordinate class,” raised the question of implementation of the “laws of morality” in practice.

In 1864–1866 he was the unofficial editor of the Foreign Messenger. In April 1866, after D.V. Karakozov’s assassination attempt on Alexander II, he was arrested, in 1867 he was exiled to Totma, and then to the city of Kadnikov, Vologda province.

In 1868–1869, in the magazine “Week” he published one of his most famous works - Historical letters, in which he formulated the “subjective method in sociology,” which, according to contemporaries, became “the gospel of social revolutionary youth.” He glorified “human thought as the only active force transforming culture into civilization.”

In February 1870, friends (among whom was G.A. Lopatin) helped him escape from exile. He emigrated with his family to Paris, where he was accepted as a member of the Anthropological Society. In the fall he joined the International Workers' Association (First International), in 1871 he became a member of the Paris Commune .

In 1871, on behalf of the Communards, he went to London, where he became close to K. Marx and F. Engels. Recognizing the proletariat as important social force, Lavrov remained of the opinion that in the development of Russia main role the peasantry plays. In 1873–1875 he published the non-periodical publication “Forward”, in 1875–1877 - a newspaper with the same name (published in Zurich and London). Lavrov’s articles on “the real worldview against the theological worldview,” on “the struggle of labor against the idle use of the blessings of life,” on “equality against monopoly” indicated that he had become an established social egalitarian, a supporter of social equality.

He considered his main task to be the propaganda of the ideas of revolution among the peasants, therefore the trend close to him in populism is called, after V.I. Lenin, “propaganda”. He shared populist views on the peasant community as the basis of the future social system, insisted on the priority of social problems over political ones, and developed the idea of ​​​​the originality and uniqueness of Russia's historical path. Speaking against anarchism, rebellion, the revolutionary adventurism of M.A. Bakunin and the conspiratorial tactics of P.N. Tkachev, Lavrov believed that “revolutionary violence is possible to a certain minimum.” At the same time, in his opinion, “the restructuring of Russian society must be carried out not only for the purpose of the people’s good, not only for the people, but also through the people.”

In 1878 he established contact with the Polish and Russian revolutionary underground, and was the initiator of group meetings of Russian revolutionary emigration, promoting “practical actions of Russian socialists in Russia.” Associated with both the Black Redistribution and Narodnaya Volya in 1879, he took over the latter’s representation abroad. Believing that the social revolution in Russia would come not from the city, but from the village, he called on intellectuals to train propagandists from among the people, but he himself was also inclined to recognize terror as a method of fighting the autocracy.

In 1882, together with V.I. Zasulich, he organized the “Red Cross of the People’s Will,” seeing in it “the only revolutionary party in Russia.” He was expelled by the authorities from Paris, but returned to this city under a different name. While living there, he constantly published in foreign and Russian magazines - “Otechestvennye zapiski”, “Delo”, “Knowledge”, using different pseudonyms.

In 1883–1886 he was the editor of the “Bulletin of Narodnaya Volya” (together with L.A. Tikhomirov).

He maintained personal relationships and correspondence with many Russian and foreign socialists from France, Poland, Germany, Serbia, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, England, Scandinavian countries, and the USA. Together with G.V. Plekhanov, he participated in the organization of the populist “Russian Social Revolutionary Library”.

Since 1889 - delegate from Russia at the International Socialist Congress in Paris, participant in the creation of the “Socialist Library” of the Zurich Literary Socialist Foundation. In the same year, he attended the Paris Congress of the Second International, where he made a report on the development of socialist ideas in Russia. In it, he was one of the first to point out the beginning of mass proletarian struggle in the country.

In 1892–1896 he took part in the publication Materials for the history of the Russian social revolutionary movement. Studying the history of socialist teachings, he developed his own theory of workers' socialism, based on the principles of common property, universal labor and an autonomous secular community. He noted the role of Marxism in scientific socialism, but was skeptical about the activities of the Social Democrats in Russia and Plekhanov’s “Emancipation of Labor” group.

Having defined his worldview as “anthropologism,” Lavrov considered himself the heir to world socio-theoretical thought, starting with Protagoras and the ancient skeptics and ending with O. Comte, L. Feuerbach, G. Spencer, and neo-Kantians. Later he was influenced by some of Marx's ideas.

In his works of a philosophical nature ( Mechanical theory of the world, 1859; Hegel's practical philosophy, 1859; Essays on issues of practical philosophy, 1861) the spirit of “positive philosophy” reigns: the crucial scientific knowledge are strongly criticized various shapes metaphysics. Lavrov also criticized the “vulgar materialism” of German naturalists (K. Buchner, L. Vocht, etc.), seeing in it, however, not so much a vulgarization of materialist philosophy, but one of its most consistent historical forms. Materialism, with its doctrine of a single substance independent of consciousness, was for him only one of the options for metaphysical faith. The subject of philosophy, according to Lavrov, is the “whole person,” and therefore it can only be “philosophical anthropology.” Only through a person, understanding his historical and individual experience, can one come to a truly scientific, philosophical understanding of external reality.

Seeing the whole person as its subject, philosophy itself must have a unity that can have exceptional value not only in the field of knowledge, but also in the field of life and creativity. “Philosophy in knowledge is the construction of all information into a coherent system, the understanding of all things as one, unity in understanding. Philosophy in creativity is the introduction of an understanding of the world and life into creative activity, the embodiment of the understood unity of all things in an image, in a harmonious form, the unity of thought and action.” Lavrov’s teaching about the whole person and the whole philosophy contains an ethical orientation that is characteristic of Russian thought in general. Basing, in order to avoid “metaphysical illusions,” epistemology on the principle of skepticism (“the process of consciousness in itself does not make it possible to decide whether it is itself the result of real being, or whether real being is its product”), Lavrov made a fundamental exception for only one area – ethics. “The absence of a skeptical principle in the construction of practical philosophy,” he argued, “gives it special strength and independence from metaphysical theories.”

A person acting in history recognizes himself as a free person, and it is this “consciousness of freedom” that becomes, according to Lavrov, the source of moral relations in society. “I proceed from the fact of consciousness of freedom, the fact of consciousness of ideals, and on the basis of these facts I build a coherent system of moral processes.” Although the “consciousness of freedom” does not prove the reality of free will, it (this consciousness) and the moral ideals formed on its basis are absolutely necessary for historical progress. Striving to realize ideals, a person creates himself as an individual. Ultimately, everything depends on himself, since there are no innate moral qualities. “Man is innate only with the desire for pleasure, and among the pleasures a developed person develops in himself the pleasure of moral life...”

In Lavrov’s sociological concept, the true historical figures are “developed, critically thinking individuals” - progressive and revolutionary-minded representatives of the educated layer of society. These individuals determine the criteria for progress, goals and ideals of social development. This approach leads to the recognition of the decisive role of the subjective principle in history. For Lavrov, it is the subjective method that works in sociology: social changes are original, unique, they are the result of the efforts of the individual, and objective scientific methods are not applicable here. Dreaming of socialist transformations in Russia, Lavrov, like other leaders of populism, pinned his hopes on the peasant community, on “the penetration of the principles of collective labor and collective property into the working masses”, believed in the gradual inclusion of the people in active social and political life, in the “people's initiative."

Lavrov was not the epigone of European positivism and materialism. His philosophical and sociological views were quite independent and original. At the center of his worldview there was always a certain “critically thinking personality”, capable of acquiring new views and possessing a rigid moral core. He considered the advanced intelligentsia - “a small group of individuals” - the engine of social progress, but rather vaguely imagined them as striving “to realize truth and justice in social forms.” Believing that only the unity of the intelligentsia with the people can create “moral socialism,” he wrote: “we do not want violent power to replace the old one... The future system of Russian society... must translate into action the needs of the majority, which they themselves have recognized and understood.” . Socialism, in his opinion, was “the inevitable result of the modern process of economic life,” and more than other concepts of the public good, it corresponded moral ideal humanity. But the “rural community and artel unions” were supposed to help make the transition to it. Paris Commune he called it a model of a socialist state.

Lavrov's contradictory views became a kind of intermediate link from Chernyshevsky's materialism to Mikhailovsky's subjectivism. “Laurism” was criticized by Plekhanov and Lenin. But the ranks of Lavrov's followers in Russia remained very close-knit; His position was often adopted by Social Democrats, who withdrew from practical activities and took up so-called “cultivation” (propaganda).

In the last years of his life he wrote a number of generalizing works: Experience of the history of modern thought(started in 1898 and remained unfinished); Populists propagandists 1873–1878(was published after his death in 1907). Left unfinished The Challenges of Understanding History And History of thought with reflections on revolution and morality.

Lavrov died in Paris on January 25 (February 6), 1900; his funeral at the Montparnasse cemetery was accompanied by a procession of eight thousand. Socialists from many countries spoke at the grave.

Lavrov's collected works were published in 14 issues in 1917–1920.

In 1923, a street in St. Petersburg was named after him.

Irina Pushkareva, Lev Pushkarev.