1823 - 1900) - Russian philosopher and sociologist, publicist, theorist of populism. The core of Lavrov's socio-political doctrine was two interrelated ideas: 1) about the socialist nature of the Russian peasant community; 2) about the special role of the intelligentsia in the Russian liberation movement. The main driving force of history, according to Lavrov, are "critically thinking individuals", advanced intelligentsia.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

LAVROV Petr Lavrovich

1823-1900) - Russian theorist. revolutionary populism, philosopher, publicist, sociologist. L. defined his worldview as anthropologism, the essence of which is the recognition of the human. personality as a unity of the material and spiritual, the denial of various kinds of "metaphysics". Based on the rationalist traditions in philosophy, L. criticized religion and mysticism. forms of idealism. Criticism of mysticism was conducted by him from the standpoint of positivism, not materialism (which L. considered a form of metaphysics), and therefore was inconsistent. Main op. L. on philosophy and sociology were included in the collection: Philosophy and sociology. M-, 1965, v.1-2.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

LAVROV PETER LAVROVYCH

1823 - 1900) - one of the most prominent leaders and theorists of revolutionary populism. Member of the First International. Lavrov took part in the organization of the first populist society "Land and Freedom" in 1876; when the society broke up in 1879 into the Black Redistribution and Narodnaya Volya groups, he joined the latter and since then was the theoretical head of the Narodnaya Volya until his death, editing the main organ of the party, Vestnik Narodnaya Volya, from 1883 to 1886. In 1874 he emigrated to North America, seeking to organize an agricultural colony there. After the failure of this attempt, in the 90s he moved to England, where he took part in the publication of leaflets of the Free Russian press of the populist direction "Forward". Lavrov's works belong to Peru, some of which, like Historical Letters, had a great influence on the Russian revolutionary intelligentsia of the 70s and 80s, laying the foundation for the "Russian sociological school". The largest work by P. Lavrov, "The Paris Commune", which is discussed in the text, is one of the best books on this issue in world literature. /T. 12/

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

LAVROV Petr Lavrovich

genus. June 2, 1823, p. Melehovo, Pskov province. - mind. Jan 25 1900, Paris) - Russian. philosopher and sociologist, publicist, ideologist of "populism". He took part in the work of the underground revolutionary organizations "Land and Freedom" and "Narodnaya Volya", was arrested, exiled, but fled abroad. In philosophical works ("Practical Philosophy of Hegel", 1859; "Mechanical Theory of the World", 1859; "Essays on Practical Philosophy", 1860; "Problems of Positivism and Their Solution", 1886; "Most Important Moments in the History of Thought", 1899) believed that the subject of philosophy is man as a single indivisible whole; the material world exists, but in judgments about it a person cannot go beyond the world of phenomena and human experience. Therefore, materialism is a kind of speculative, metaphysical belief, at best a hypothesis. Here the influence on Lavrov of the ideas of Kant and positivism was manifested. In sociology ("Historical Letters", 1869) developed the concepts of culture and civilization. If the culture of a society, according to Lavrov, is an environment given by history for the work of thought, then civilization is a conscious principle, found in a progressive change in the forms of culture. The bearers of civilization are "critically thinking individuals". The measure of the critical enlightenment of human moral consciousness acts as a criterion of social progress, which consists in increasing the consciousness of the individual and solidarity between individuals.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

LAVROV Petr Lavrovich

June 2 (14), 1823, p. Melekhovo, Pskov region. - January 25 (February 6), 1900, Paris] - Russian philosopher, publicist, politician. In 1837-42 he studied at the St. Petersburg Artillery School. Since 1846 professor of mathematics at the St. Petersburg Military Academy. In 1858 he was promoted to colonel. According to the verdict of the military court in connection with the assassination of Karakozov, he was exiled to the Vologda province, where he wrote his most famous work, Historical Letters. After escaping from exile in 1870 - in exile.

In philosophical works, Lavrov opposed the religious worldview and speculative philosophy. Recognizing the merits of materialism in the fight against religion and idealistic metaphysics, he shared the positivist idea of ​​it as a kind of metaphysics. At the same time, he criticized positivism for the lack of a "philosophical principle" in it. According to Lavrov, man is a principle that serves as the center of the philosophical system. He defined his philosophy as anthropologism. The activity of the individual in the sphere of nature is limited by objective laws, but in the socio-historical field, a person pursues goals that correspond to the developed ideals. The historical process in general terms is the processing by critical thought of stable and stagnant forms of culture into progressive social forms of civilization. The driving force of history is critically thinking individuals. The struggle for further progress is understood as the struggle for socialism. Cit.: Philosophy and sociology, v. 1-2. M., 1965. Lit.: Volodin A.I., Itenberg B.S. Lavrov. M., 1981. Archives: 1762; RSL.f. 178; International Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis. Amsterdam (l. f.).

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

Russian philosopher, publicist, scientist-anthropologist, ideologist of revolutionary populism. Member of the democratic movement of the 60s, arrested in 1866, tried and sentenced to exile. In 1870 he fled abroad, to Paris, joined one of the sections of the First International. Member of the Paris Commune of 1871, met Marx and Engels in London. In exile he published a magazine and a newspaper “Vperyod!” and "Messenger" People's Will ". He had a great influence on the revolutionary movement in Russia in the 70-80s. Lenin called L. “a veteran of revolutionary theory” (T. 2, p. 462). L. as a philosopher was formed by the end of the 50s under the influence of the ideas of Belinsky, Herzen and German classical philosophy; called his system of views "realism". It includes “materialism” (the doctrine of nature), “anthropologism” (the doctrine of man and society) and “positivism” (the requirement of scientificity). In the theory of knowledge L. in DOS. stood on materialistic positions, but allowed confusion in terms, which gave grounds to accuse him of concessions to agnosticism. He noted certain positive features in positivism (for example, the desire to rely on natural science), but rejected it for non-philosophical thinking, dogmatism and speculativeness. He spoke in defense of Darwinism; declared evolutionism as a universal philosophical method, put forward a number of dialectical positions. He associated the beginning of the history of human civilization with the emergence of “critical thought”, each achieved level of social development he called “culture”, the basis for further movement, development towards a higher civilization. The driving motive for progress, according to L., are 3 groups of human needs: basic (zoological and sociological - the needs of nutrition, security and nervous excitement), temporary (forms of state, property, religion) and development needs (historical life). The goal of social development, according to L., is to strengthen the solidarity of people, which cannot be achieved without a scientific understanding of nature, man and thinking. Striving for solidarity, people should, he believed, work out the ideal of the future about-va; for this it is necessary to stand on the positions of the working people. T. naz. "subjective method" is the tool for developing such an ideal. According to L. (“Historical Letters”), “thought is real only in personality”, therefore Ch. The driving force behind history is critically thinking individuals, i.e., advanced intelligentsia, the task of which is to prepare the people for revolution: the intelligentsia must repay its debt to the people. Recognizing the scientific nature of Marx's teachings, L. doubted its applicability in Russia because of the specifics of its historical development (the presence of a community, etc.). At the end of his life, he welcomed the entry into the arena of the revolutionary struggle of the Russian Social Democracy. L. stood up for the unification of all detachments of revolutionaries in Russia. He gave a high appraisal of the struggle of the Paris Communards, saw in the Commune the prototype of the workers' state. Main cit.: “Historical Letters” (1868-69), “Essays on Systematic Knowledge” (1871-73), “Experience in the History of Modern Thought” (1894), “State Element in the Future Society” (1875), “Social revolution and the tasks of morality” (1884), “Problems of understanding history” (1893), “The most important moments in the history of thought” (1903).

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

LAVROV Petr Lavrovich

2 (14).6.1823, p. Melekhovo, Pskov Province, - 25.1 (6.2). 1900, Paris], Russian. philosopher and sociologist, publicist, revolutionary ideologist. populism. Member of the Democratic movement of the 60s, in 1866 he was arrested, betrayed by the military. court and sentenced to exile. In 1870 he fled abroad, in Paris he was accepted into one of the sections of the International, participated in the Paris Commune of 1871, at the same time in London he met K. Marx and F. Engels. In 1873-76 he published a journal. and gas. "Forward!" (Zurich, London), in 1883-1886 - one of the editors of the Bulletin of the People's Will.

In philosophy. works of the 50s and 60s. (“Practical Philosophy of Hegel”, 1859; “Mechanical Theory of the World”, 1859; “Essays on Practical Philosophy”, 1860; “Three Conversations on the Modern Significance of Philosophy”, 1861, etc.) spoke from the standpoint of anthropologism criticism of religion. ideologies and mysticism. forms of idealism as "pathological. elements” of consciousness, as well as vulgar materialism, which L. unfairly identified with materialism in general. According to L., the subject of philosophy is man as a single indivisible whole; the objective material world undoubtedly exists, but in our judgments about it we cannot go beyond the world of phenomena, man. experience; therefore, materialism, which considers everything that exists is only a diverse manifestation of a single substance (“substance”) that is not given directly in the mind, despite all its historical. merit in the fight against idealism, is a kind of speculate., metaphysical. beliefs, at best - a hypothesis. With these philosophies provisions of L., in which the impact on L. of the ideas of Kant and positivism was manifested, in the 60s. N. G. Chernyshevsky and M. A. Antonovich argued.

In sociology, L. ("Historical letters", 1870, etc.) emphasized the fundamental difference between natural (regular, repeating) and societies. (progressively changing, unique) phenomena. According to L., the essence of history lies in the processing of culture - traditional societies prone to stagnation. forms, into civilization - conscious. historical movement carried out by "critical thought." Since thought is real only in personality, ch. the driving force of history is "critically thinking individuals", advanced intelligentsia. L. developed a subjective method in sociology: the criterion of societies. progress, which ultimately consists in human growth. solidarity, in an ever more complete incarnation in human. hostel ideas of equality and justice, identified them with morals. the ideal of a thinker or historian. figure. According to L., critically thinking and energetically desiring individuals must unite in a party to achieve their goals, which gives the struggle “direction and unity” (Iyabbr. soch., vol. I, p. 254. 261).

Unlike Bakunin and Tkachev, L. insisted on the obligation to scrutinize. the preparation of a social revolution, the preparation of both the people, which alone can make a revolution, and its leaders, are conscious. revolutionaries ("Forward! Our Program", 1873). From this t. sp. L. criticized Bakunin's bet on revolution. the impulse of the masses, the Blanquist conception of revolution from above, the "Jacobinism" of Tkachev and other figures will liberate. movement. L. attached particular importance to the role of morality. began in the revolution (Social Revolution and the Tasks of Morality, 1884). Criticizing anarchism, L. admitted in the work “State. element in the future society "(1876) the need for a revolution. dictatorship in the commission of socialist. coup, on "another day" after the overthrow of the exploiters. An example of a socialist L., like Marx, saw the state in the Paris Commune (“March 18, 1871”, 1880). Not understanding the essence of Marxism as a qualitatively new socialist. teachings and conditions of its applicability to Russia, L. recognized the outstanding role of Marx and Engels in the economic. substantiation of "workers' socialism", constantly emphasized the internationalist character of the struggle for socialism. Criticizing the theoretical mistakes L., V. I. Lenin, at the same time, considered him "... a veteran of revolutionary theory ..." (PSS, vol. 2, p. 462).

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

LAVROV Petr Lavrovich (1823-1900)

Russian philosopher, sociologist, publicist, ideologue of populism. Received military education, taught in military schools. In 1868-1869 he published Historical Letters, which became the "bible" of radical youth. From 1870 abroad, publishes the newspaper "Vperyod!", prepares generalizing philosophical and sociological works. As a scientist and thinker, he strove for an integral philosophical synthesis of everything accessible to human knowledge. In his views he was close to left Hegelianism and especially positivism; he came to the ideas of the latter on his own even before he met Kon. Positivism was considered by L. not so much as a philosophy, but as a scientific method for solving problems. social science . The primacy of ethics (practical philosophy), the consciousness of moral duty, characteristic of L.'s views, was expressed in the fundamental characteristic of his worldview - anthropologism: the idea of ​​a "whole person" as the only reality. With t.sp. anthropologism, it is impossible to know the essence of things and determine the true reality, it is only possible to harmoniously unite the world of phenomena, based on the principle of skepticism (criticality), which, however, does not extend to the field of practical philosophy, where a person is aware of himself as free (although objectively, genetically this is not so) and therefore responsible. In other words, the anthropologism of L. turns into ethical immanentism: only that in which a person is given to act is real, i.e. history, the driving force of which is the thought of man, opening up space for freedom. The mystery of being is concentrated in a person, in his moral consciousness, and therefore a person as an undivided whole is the subject of philosophy, which makes all traditional philosophical schools (materialism, spiritualism) unacceptable. The highest level of philosophy is philosophy in life as the unity of the moral ideal and action. At this point philosophy develops in L. into sociology. L. is considered the founder of sociology on Russian soil, the first Russian sociologist. Considering sociology as the completion of a system of sciences (anthropology) and distinguishing it from historical science (focused on social dynamics), L. defines it as the science of solidarity, its forms and evolution. Solidarity is a commonality of habits, interests, affects or convictions, the coincidence of personal interest with the public interest. It is necessary not only to theoretically study the phenomena of solidarity, but also to solve the practical problem of its implementation, which leads L. to the conclusion that there is a special subjective method in sociology, expressed in the inevitable assessment of any social phenomenon under study from the point of view of a certain moral ideal. This reveals the ethical dominant of the sociology of L., who actually acted as the forerunner of the neo-Kantian approach to society. Not accepting the organicist interpretations of society (Spencer, Marx), L., considering the individual as the only and initial social reality, does not deny the reality of society, which, being a supra-personal being, cannot, however, be impersonal. Personality is opposed not by society as such, but by culture as a set of social forms prone to stagnation. History is the process of processing culture by thought in order to create social forms that contribute to the development of the individual. And since consciousness exists only in a person and not all people, for various reasons, can achieve a high level of self-consciousness, then the real subjects of history are "critically thinking individuals" who are able to develop the highest moral ideal in themselves. Analyzing social motivation, L. defines as the highest motive the need for development, which is most inherent in critically thinking individuals. Obviously, then, the purely intellectualism of L. in understanding the personality, besides, he could not find a way out of the dualism of the physical and ethical determination of the individual (especially in later works, where L. from reasoning about the ideal personality turns to the analysis of the real historical process her formation). The philosophy of history of L. is a theory of progress. Based on the fact that history is ultimately the history of thought, through which culture is processed into civilization, L. gives the following final "progress formula": progress is the growth of social consciousness and the consciousness of individuals, as far as they do not interfere with the development of solidarity, and the growth of solidarity, how much it does not interfere with the development of consciousness and relies on it. Historical evolution acts as a change (under the influence of critical thought) of forms of solidarity up to the achievement of conscious solidarity, coinciding with the socialist reorganization of society. In the political projection, L.'s views are characterized by criticism of revolutionary adventurism. Other works of L.: "Essays on practical philosophy. I. Personality" (1860), "Three conversations about modern meaning philosophy" (1861), "Experience in the history of thought. T. 1. Issue. 1" (1875), "Essay on the evolution of human thought" (1898), "Problems of understanding history" (1898), "The most important moments in the history of thought" (1903), "The modern doctrine of morality and its history" (1903-1904) , "Etudes on Western Literature" (1923), etc.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

Pyotr Lavrovich Lavrov (1823-1900)

a prominent Russian philosopher, theorist of revolutionary populism. Born in the family of a Pskov landowner. In 1842 he graduated from the St. Petersburg Artillery School. Main works: "Hegelism" (1858), "Hegel's Practical Philosophy" (1859), "What is Anthropology" (1860), "Essays on Practical Philosophy (Personality)" (1861), "Three Talks on the Modern Significance of Philosophy" ( 1861). Lavrov himself defines his philosophy as an "anthropological point of view." For Lavrov, the anthropologism of his philosophy consisted in the fact that he called on the human personality in the unity of its material and spiritual principles. Lavrov is regarded as a Russian positivist. Indeed, he accepted a lot from the positivism of Comte, Spencer and others, but at the same time he tried to interpret positivism in his own way, criticizing the latter for its departure from solving practical issues. Lavrov tried to create his own system of philosophy, which for him consists of three parts: philosophy in knowledge (philosophy of nature), philosophy in creativity (philosophy of the spirit), philosophy in life (philosophy of history). Philosophy in knowledge is based on empirical reality, it deals with the grouping of individual concrete facts and the discovery of connections and repetition in nature. Philosophy in creativity deals with creative fantasy and the embodiment of the concept of the world in the image. The third step is formed by philosophy in life, which is engaged in the development of higher moral ideals, which must be put into practice, into practice. “Philosophy in knowledge,” Lavrov wrote, “is the construction of all information into a coherent system, the understanding of everything that exists 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 everything that exists in an image, in harmonious form, the unity of thought and form. Philosophy in life is the comprehension of daily activity, the introduction of an understanding of everything that exists as one into our activities, the embodiment of the understood unity of everything that exists into a practical ideal, the unity of thought and action "[Philosophy and Sociology. T. 1. S. 571]. With this concept, Lavrov sought to create a new philosophy, which is a synthesis of knowledge, creativity and activity. In this case, it would act as a link between theory and practical life. In "Historical letters" Lavrov sets out his views on such important concepts as history, progress, civilization, state, nationality, etc. He emphasizes the fundamental difference that exists between nature and society. For him, nature is dominated by the regularity of phenomena that are repetitive. In history, in society, there is development, progress, the assessment of which is given only by the historian, it determines the direction of development in society. Lavrov wrote: “Consciously or unconsciously, a person applies to the entire history of mankind that moral development that he himself has achieved ... Everyone judges history subjectively, according to their view of moral ideals, and they cannot judge otherwise” [Izbr. op. T. 1. S. 190]. Only "the moral ideal of the historian is the only torch capable of giving perspective to history in its whole and in its particulars" [Ibid. S. 391]. Therefore, according to Lavrov, progress in history depends on the growth of the conscious, rational factor in the life of society, and this, in turn, depends on "the development of the individual in physical, mental and moral terms, the embodiment of truth and justice in social forms" [Ibid. S. 199]. Only "thought is the only agent that communicates human dignity to social culture" [S. 244]. But since thought is real "only in personality" [S. 245], then the main driving force of history is critically thinking individuals. After escaping from exile in St. Petersburg, and then going abroad, Livrov began to publish the magazine and newspaper Vperyod, on the pages of which he expounded his views on social development. He formulated a special type of Russian revolutionary populism, the main feature of which was that the revolution should be carefully prepared. He opposed both anarchist (Bakunin) and conspiratorial (Tkachev) trends in populism. He believed that one should not rush the revolution and cause it artificially. The desire to make a revolution artificially, in his opinion, cannot be justified in "the eyes of one who knows how hard all social upheavals fall on the poorest majority, who in this case make significant sacrifices" [T. 3. S. 34]. He opposed the conspiratorial approach to the revolution and considered outdated the opinion that “revolutionary ideas developed by a small group of a more developed minority can be imposed on the people, that the Socialist-Revolutionaries, having overthrown the central government with a successful impulse, can take its place and introduce a new system by legislative means. "By benefiting the unprepared masses. We do not want a new violent power to replace the old one, whatever the source of the new power. The future structure of Russian society ... must translate into action the needs of the majority, which they themselves recognized and understood" [Ibid. S. 31]. Lavrov proceeded from the position that the revolutionary actions of people should be based on ethical principles. He wrote: "People who claim that the end justifies the means should always be aware of the limitation of their rule by a very simple truism: except for those means that undermine the end itself" [Ibid. S. 2b].

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

Lavrov Petr Lavrovich

18231900) is a prominent Russian philosopher, theorist of revolutionary populism. Born in the family of a Pskov landowner. In 1842 he graduated from the St. Petersburg Artillery School. Major works: "Hegelism" (1858), "Hegel's Practical Philosophy" (1859), "What is Anthropology" (1860), "Essays on Practical Philosophy" (1859), "Three Discourses on the Modern Significance of Philosophy" (1860). Lavrov himself defines his philosophy as an "anthropological point of view."

For Lavrov, the anthropologism of his philosophy consisted in the fact that he considered the human personality in the unity of its material and spiritual principles. Lavrov is regarded as a Russian positivist. Indeed, he accepted much from the positivism of Comte, Spencer and others, but at the same time he sought to interpret positivism in his own way, criticizing the latter for its departure from solving the practical problems of life.

Lavrov tried to create his own system of philosophy, which for him consists of three parts: philosophy in knowledge (philosophy of nature), philosophy in creativity (philosophy of the spirit), philosophy in life (philosophy of history). Philosophy in knowledge is based on empirical reality, it deals with the grouping of individual concrete facts and the discovery of connections and repetition in nature. Philosophy in creativity deals with creative fantasy and the embodiment of the concept of the world in the image. The third stage is formed by philosophy in life, which is engaged in the development of higher moral ideals, which must be put into practice, into practice. “Philosophy in knowledge,” wrote Lavrov, “is the construction of all information in a coherent system, the understanding of everything that exists 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 that exists in an image, in a harmonious form, the unity of thought and form. Philosophy in life is the comprehension of daily activity, the introduction of an understanding of everything that exists as one into our activities, the embodiment of the understood unity of everything that exists into a practical ideal, the unity of thought and action” [Philosophy and Sociology. M., 1965. T. 1. S. 571].

With this concept, Lavrov sought to create a new philosophy, which is a synthesis of knowledge, creativity and activity. In this case, it would act as a link between theory and practical life.

In Historical Letters, Lavrov sets out his views on such important concepts as history, progress, civilization, the state, nationality, etc. He emphasizes the fundamental difference that exists between nature and society. For him, nature is dominated by the regularity of phenomena that are repetitive. In history, in society, there is development, progress, the assessment of which is given only by the historian, it determines the direction of development in society. Lavrov wrote: "Consciously or unconsciously, a person applies to the entire history of mankind that moral development that he himself has achieved." Everyone judges history subjectively, according to their view of moral ideals, and they cannot judge otherwise” [Ibid. T. 2. S. 42-43].

Only "the moral ideal of history is the only torch capable of giving perspective to history in its whole and in its particulars" [Ibid. S. 292]. Therefore, according to Lavrov, progress in history depends on the growth of the conscious, rational factor in the life of society, and this, in turn, depends on “the development of the individual in the physical, mental and moral sense; embodiment in social forms of truth and justice” [Ibid. S. 54]. Only “thought is the only agent that communicates human dignity to social culture” [S. 109]. But since “a thought is real only in a person” [S. 110], then the main driving force of history is critically thinking individuals.

After escaping from exile in St. Petersburg, and then going abroad, Lavrov began to publish the magazine and newspaper Vperyod, on the pages of which he expounded his views on social development. He described a special type of Russian revolutionary populism, the main demand of which was the demand for thorough preparation for the revolution. He opposed both anarchist (Bakunin) and conspiratorial (Tkachev) trends in populism. He believed that one should not rush the revolution and cause it artificially. The desire to make an artificial revolution, in his opinion, cannot be justified in the eyes of someone who knows how hard all social upheavals fall precisely on the poorest majority, who in this case make significant sacrifices.

Lavrov opposed the conspiratorial approach to the revolution and considered it outdated the opinion that revolutionary ideas developed by a small group of a more developed minority could be imposed on the people, that the Socialist-Revolutionaries, having overthrown the central government with a successful impulse, could take its place and introduce a new system by legislative means, benefiting the unprepared masses. We do not want a new violent power to replace the old one, whatever the source of the new power. The future structure of Russian society must translate into action the needs of the majority, which they themselves have recognized and understood.

LAVROV Petr Lavrovich

2(14). 06. 1823, p. Melekhovo, Pskov region. - 25. 01 (6. 02). 1900, Paris) - Russian theorist. populism, whose "Historical Letters" ideologically inspired the "to the people" movement that unfolded among the intelligentsia in the 1870s. L., the son of a retired artillery officer, in 1842 graduated from the Artillery School in St. Petersburg. Until 1866 he was in military service (he rose to the rank of colonel). He taught mathematics and the history of science at various military schools in St. Petersburg. At the same time L. intensively studied philosophy and since 1858. published a series of philosophical works that brought him fame. Due to cooperation with the "Land and Freedom" society, he was arrested (1866) and exiled to Vologda (1867). In 1870, L. fled to the West. Europe, where he became a prominent figure in the international socialist movement. He was the spokesman for a special form of positivism that arose in Russia in the 2nd half. XIX century, to-ruyu called "anthropologism". Disagreeing with all varieties of metaphysics (both materialistic and idealistic), this worldview was combined with the upholding of the paramount importance of human consciousness as the most important object of scientific research and the guiding principle of moral and social activity. Philosophical views L. were not formed under the influence of O. Comte (he was not familiar with his work until the mid-1860s). They were affected by his passion for the natural sciences, combined with a broad study of the history of philosophy, especially the ideas of J. Kant, Hegel, W. Cousin, the neo-Kantian F. A. Lange, the Young Hegelians A. Ruge and L. Feuerbach. L.'s rejection of metaphysics is manifested in his early work(1858-1861), in which he rejects materialism, considering it a doctrine that claims (like idealism) to inexperienced knowledge of the essence of things, since, in his opinion, the central concepts of materialism - force and matter - are not deducible from empirical observation. Referring to Kant, L. believed that only phenomena are available to human consciousness, they do not contain any evidence indicating their connection, causal or consequential, with c. essential being. At the same time (unlike representatives of extreme forms of empiricism), L. believed that the sphere of phenomena is not limited to phenomena accessible to sensory sensations, but includes historical facts and phenomena of consciousness. Although the last two kinds of phenomena cannot be studied by the methods of the natural sciences, nevertheless, they are necessary components of human experience, and spiritual phenomena are of paramount importance for a person, since no experience is possible outside the sphere of consciousness. According to L., the study of the phenomena of consciousness falls within the competence of the subjective method, essentially the method of self-observation. Through self-observation, a person discovers moral imperatives and is convinced that there is free will, with the help of which their implementation is carried out. The ideals revealed by the subjective method form the basis of L.'s ethical theory, as well as his philosophy of history and social philosophy. Developing the ethics of personality improvement, L. argued that every human action comes from the initial desire for pleasure; however, cognition and especially creativity, realizing this initial impulse, take a person beyond simple search pleasures, transform it into an imperative, or a duty, perceived by people as an obligation imposed on them. Of particular importance for the individual is the ideal of personal dignity developed by her as the need for physical development, improvement of one's consciousness and character. But, striving for this ideal, a person comes into contact with other individuals and, through a sense of justice, ineradicably present in the mind, comes to the recognition of their dignity and the right to development. The concept of justice is the cornerstone of L.'s ethical theory; it is the sense of justice that is the basis for the observance of the right to respect and development for each person. All other rights and obligations arising in interpersonal relations are determined by this initial right. In his most significant work. "Historical Letters" L. defines the very purpose of history as the achievement of physical, moral and intellectual perfection of the individual. Achieving historical progress, according to L., is possible as a result of the reorganization of social institutes, thought out in such a way as to create all the conditions for the development of the individual. Critically referring to obsolete social forms that do not meet human needs, acting in the direction of their change or renewal, people thereby move history forward, turn culture into civilization. But not everyone is capable of such activity; only he who has the capacity to improve his intellect and the energy to carry out social reorganization can be considered the creator of civilization. L. believed that these critically minded individuals have a real burden - to carry out historical progress; such is their moral duty to the people - a huge mass of suffering workers, thanks to which the critically thinking minority has free time and achieves high moral development. In his social and political philosophy, L. and his populist followers were committed to democratic socialism as a form of organization about-va, which best provides the goal of historical progress - the development of the individual. In relation to Russia, they developed a special form of socialism - agrarian socialism, based on such traditional institutions as the community and the artel. For implementation of socialist transformation about-va, emphasized L., the corresponding political activity is necessary; in his "Historical Letters" he presented the Russian. to the radicals the project of creating an organized political party. Once abroad, L. devoted himself entirely to the organization of revolutionary activities. His teaching emphasized at first the need for painstaking preparation and propaganda; later, however, he came to terms with revolutionary terrorism and began to cooperate with the organization "Narodnaya Volya". His views on the state were largely anarchist, but he did not agree with M. A. Bakunin regarding the need for the immediate destruction of the state apparatus. Just like K. Marx, he believed that the state is a useful temporary weapon in the hands of the revolutionaries; however, he was afraid of the concentration of power, which is concentrated in the state, and advocated the most rapid elimination of the state after the revolution. L. represented the socialist world of the future as a combination of autonomous communities, from which, if necessary, free federations are formed. In his later socialist views, close to those of Marx, L. paid more attention to class conflicts and the production process, but at the same time he never fully agreed with the Marxist view of history and social development. He retained his moralistic and individualistic approach, with his emphasis on developing the free activity of the critically thinking individual. L. was not a supporter of the fatalistic interpretation of the laws of social development, considering them probabilistic laws and associated with the influence of moral factors.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

P. L. Lavrov

Biography-confession

P. L. Lavrov. Philosophy and sociology Selected works in two volumes. Volume 2. USSR Academy of Sciences. Institute of Philosophy M., Publishing House of Socio-Economic Literature "Thought", 1965

I. Curriculum vitae II. Teaching 1. General worldview 2. Ethics 3. Sociology and socialism 4. History and its relation to anthropology 5. Practical tasks in relation to Russia

I
BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

Pyotr Lavrovich Lavrov was born in the Pskov province, Velikolutsky district, in the village of Melekhovo, on June 2 (14), 1823. He was brought up until 1837 at home. In 1837 he entered the Artillery School. He was promoted to officer in 1842 and from July 1844 to April 1866 he taught mathematics, first at the Artillery School, then at the Artillery Academy, and he was given courses in higher mathematics, previously taught by Academician Ostrogradsky. In addition, Lavrov was invited to teach higher mathematical courses in a special class of the Konstantinovsky Military School when this class was founded (1858); He was also a permanent observer of the mathematical sciences. In 1865 and 1866, Lavrov gave a public (unfinished) course in the history of physical and mathematical sciences in the laboratory of the Artillery Academy, and in 1865 he gave three lectures to officers of the guards artillery on the influence of the successes of the exact sciences on military affairs; they were published in the Artillery Journal and in a special pamphlet. Lavrov never printed his mathematical courses, but according to the rules adopted in this regard in the institution where he taught, these courses were lithographed many times, gradually undergoing changes. In the summer of 1855 (between courses), Lavrov participated in the defense of Narva against the enemy and temporarily commanded artillery there, but he did not happen to participate in any hostilities. Lavrov was a member of the St. Petersburg City Duma and the St. Petersburg Zemstvo. Lavrov began to take an active part in literature only in 1855. He wrote poetry from childhood, and when he entered the Artillery School, he already had in his past various beginnings of dramatic scenes and lyrical works (of course, very weak ones); He wrote a lot at the school. In 1840 or 1841 one of his poems 1 was even printed with his signature in the Library for Reading, published by Senkovsky (Bar. Brambeus). In 1852, Lavrov was invited to contribute articles on artillery and various sciences to the Military Encyclopedic Dictionary, published by Gen. Bogdanovich, and placed articles in the first volumes of this edition (up to the letter M). Somewhat later, for about two years, he was assistant editor of the Artillery Journal, Colonel Minut (I don’t remember the year, but between 1854 and 1860). But these were all side activities that didn't really matter. Some of Lavrov's poems were sent to A. I. Herzen in 1856 with a letter 2 , which expressed too many hopes for the beginning of the reign of Alexander II. Both the letter and the poems "Prophecy" and "Russian people" were published by A. I. Herzen in the fourth book of "Voices from Russia" without the name of the author. Extracts have been made from the latter to characterize the state of the press in Russia in the books by Wallace and Rambaud on Russia 3 . Some more of Lavrov's poems were published completely without his knowledge in various foreign collections, often distorted, but nowhere attributed to him. Of the later poems, two, without a signature, were published in the Vperyod newspaper, which he edited. Lavrov entered into permanent literary activity only at the beginning of the new reign, in 1856, in the little-known journal "Generally Entertaining Bulletin" with an article on the classification of sciences; wrote there and "Letters of the provincial" about contemporary events. Attention was paid to him only when in 1856 in the "Library for Reading", published by Druzhinin, his long article on "Hegelism" appeared. From then until 1866, he published many articles in the "Library for Reading" (edited by Druzhinin, Pisemsky, Boborykin), in "Notes of the Fatherland" (edited by Kraevsky, under the main leadership of Dudyshkin), in the "Russian Word" (under edited by Blagosvetlov) and in some other editions 4 with his full signature and under the initial letters of his name. These were for the most part articles of philosophical content or reviews of foreign literature. Of these articles, "Essays on Issues of Practical Philosophy: Personality" published in Otechestvennye Zapiski and devoted to "A. G. and P. P.", i.e., Herzen and Proudhon, were published in 1860 and in a special pamphlet. In November 1860, for the benefit of the Literary Fund, Lavrov gave three lectures on the modern significance of philosophy, which were the first public word on philosophy delivered by a secular person in Russia outside theological institutions since the closing of the departments of philosophy by Nicholas I. These lectures, published in Otechestvennye Zapiski ", were also published in a special brochure in 1861. In 1862, Lavrov was looking for a philosophy department at St. Petersburg University, but the conditions introduced by the new charter put an end to this matter, for which Lavrov had already presented the program of the proposed course. When the courses were arranged in the duma, the students suggested that Lavrov give a course in philosophy there, but he was not allowed to do this. - Of the articles of this period, the largest and most valuable, in addition to those mentioned above, are the following: in the "Library for Reading" - "A Few Thoughts on the System general mental education of young people" and Lessing's "Laocoon"; in "Notes of the Fatherland" - "Mechanical Theory of the World" (on materialism); in "Russian Word" - "Modern German theists" and "My critics" (answer to Antonovich and Pisarev). When the "Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary" was founded under the editorship of Kraevsky, in 1861, Lavrov was entrusted with the editorship of the philosophical department, and from the second volume, private editors chose him as the editor-in-chief of the "Dictionary" instead of Kraevsky. The "Dictionary" contains many articles by him, signed and unsigned, on various subjects, but mainly on philosophical, historical and historical-religious. This publication provoked numerous denunciations from bishops and spiritual journals (especially Askochensky, who demanded an ecclesiastical anathema and criminal punishment by penal servitude) and had to stop at the very first letters, meeting a rather cold reception in the liberal literature of that time, because Lavrov stood completely aloof from the leaders of the then liberal thought in Sovremennik, becoming somewhat closer to Chernyshevsky only in recent months activities of the latter, before his arrest, which was followed, as you know, hard labor. However, M. Antonovich, who in 1862 wrote the sharpest article in Sovremennik against Lavrov, became a contributor to the Dictionary under his editorship in the last volume, when the existence of this publication was already completely undermined. - From Lavrov's numerous articles in " Encyclopedic Dictionary" the largest ones: "Abelard", "Augustine", "Averroes", "Adam", "Hell", "Alamber", "Anabaptists", "Anthropological point of view", "Arab philosophy". Upon the termination of the Dictionary, Lavrov edited (with the official edition of Afanasyev-Chuzhbinsky 5) the journal of translated articles "Foreign Bulletin", and also published in the "Sea Collection" and in the "Artillery Journal", based on the public lectures mentioned above, " Essay on the history of the physical and mathematical sciences", the first issue of which (before the Alexandrian period) was published separately and which, as a result of Lavrov's arrest, stopped at the paragraph on Galen. Last paragraphs on Diophantus and the end ancient world were already in type, but were never printed: the author did not save either the proofs or the manuscript. In the mid-60s, under the editorship of Lavrov and with his notes, a translation of the "Logic" by J. St. was being prepared for publication. Mill, a translation that appeared only after Lavrov's arrest. For most of the second volume, Lavrov did not see at all. Lavrov was for several years the treasurer and member of the Committee of the Literary Fund and the foreman of the short-lived (1861-1862) literary club, which was called the Chess Club. In 1864-1865. Lavrov took a zealous part in the establishment of the Women's Labor Society, in which Countess Rostovtseva and Anna Pavlovna Filosofova participated. This society collapsed on the eve of the first general meeting, and the explanations that Lavrov was forced to make with the persons just mentioned caused considerable irritation against him. In the early 1960s, Lavrov was invited to the Land and Freedom Society, but his participation in this society was so insignificant that it is not even worth talking about. After Karakozov's shot (April 4 (16), 1866), when Muravyov received almost dictatorial power in St. Petersburg, numerous arrests and searches were made there. Incidentally, a search was also made at Lavrov's. Then he was arrested on April 25 (May 7), 1866 and brought to court martial in August of the same year. Senator Behr interrogated him; Lavrov was called for interrogation only three times and did not have a confrontation with anyone. The court found him guilty of composing four poems in which "disrespect was aroused" for Nicholas I and Alexander II, of "sympathy and closeness to people known to the government for their criminal direction" (Chernyshevsky, Mikhailov, Pavlov), of publishing "harmful ideas" and in some other, smaller wines. The Military Judicial Commission sentenced him to arrest for some time. This verdict was modified by the auditor general (Filosofov, Anna Pavlovna's husband was then the auditor general) and confirmed by the emperor in the following form: Lavrov quit his service and was sent to live in one of the inner provinces under police supervision. This "internal" province turned out to be Vologda. After a nine-month arrest in the St. Petersburg ordinance, Lavrov was taken to Totma on February 15 (27), 1867. In 1868, he was transferred first to Vologda and immediately then to the city of Kadnikov, where two gendarmes were appointed to monitor him, the only political exile in the city. After three years of exile, on February 15 (27), 1870, Lavrov, with the assistance of a devoted comrade, G. A. Lopatin, who came for this from St. Petersburg, fled from Kadnikov and on March 13 (1) arrived in Paris. A. I. Herzen, who knew about this flight and was waiting for him in Paris (he never knew him personally), died just shortly before. Since April 1866, Lavrov could not, of course, publish anything in the legal Russian press under his own name (with the exception of a small anthropological article 6 in the Vologda Gubernskiye Vedomosti, published with the permission of the local governor). But he published many articles under various pseudonyms, under initials or without a signature at all. Of the magazines that have now ceased, we will name, for the three years of Lavrov's Vologda exile, "Women's Bulletin", "Bibliographer", "Modern Review", "Domestic Notes" from 1868, "Nedelya" (former edition). Since Lavrov's articles were sent at that time for the most part through the police, both the government and the public were aware of his collaboration in journals over these three years, and therefore his most common pseudonym is P. Mirtov, signed by P. L. and P. M. were a very transparent mask. Under the pseudonym P. Mirtov were published in 1868-69 in Nedelya and Historical Letters, which appeared later, in 1870, in a revised form, as a separate edition and had some influence on Russian youth. From the time Lavrov settled abroad until 1873, when he became the editor of Vperyod, the publication of his articles in Russian publications began to meet with more difficulties, and Lavrov had to change pseudonyms even more often. Nevertheless, almost everyone attributed to him a number of articles in Knowledge, which appeared in 1875 as An Experience in the History of Thought, vol. 1, no. 1, as well as another series of articles placed there under the general title "Essays on Systematic Knowledge". The pseudonyms of Mirtov and Kedrov were partially and directly disclosed in the press in an article by M. A. Bakunin. - Since the middle of the 70s, that is, in the last 15 years, if Lavrov managed to publish articles in various legal Russian journals, then only without the knowledge of the editors, sending them through persons who themselves did not always know who wrote the articles. The subjects that he wrote about at that time were the more diverse, the more carefully he had to hide who their author was. Since at present none of the journals where these articles were published exist or are edited by persons of a completely different direction, while the former editors have died, most of the obstacles to listing these articles (however, incomplete), as far as one can recall them, have been removed. , starting from 1868 until the end of the first half of the 80s. In the "Women's Herald" of 1868-69: "Herbert Spencer" and his "Experiments", "Women in France in the 17th and 18th centuries", about women in Italy in the Middle Ages 7 . In the "Bibliographer" of 1869 (the only issue, as far as I remember): "Letter to the Editor", "Review of Foreign Anthropological Literature", about Haeckel's book, a report on the "Week" of 1868-69. In "Modern Review": "Anthropological Essays", "The Development of the Doctrine of Mythical Beliefs", "The Tasks of Positivism and Their Solution". In "Notes of the Fatherland": "Before Man", "Anthropologists in Europe", "American Sectarians", "Philosophy of the History of the Slavs", "The Historical Significance of Science and the Book of Wevel", "The Role of Science in the Renaissance and Reformation", "Civilization and wild peoples, Modern teachings about morality and their development", "The eve of the great upheavals", "Opponents of history", about the psychology of Kavelin, "Mr. Mikhailovsky's formula for progress", "The troubles of science with lower animals", "Notes of an old Chartist", "Lyrics of the thirties and forties "," St. Beve as a man. "In the" Case ": two articles about Schopenhauer, about Disraeli ("Product of the policy of the XIX century"), "Karl Ernst Baer", about P. Annenkov ("Russian tourist of the 40s" and "Aesthetic Tourist"), about the book of de Roberti ("The Only Russian Sociologist"), about the works of Kareev and Goltsev ("History of France under the Pen of New Russian Researchers"), "Political Types of the 18th Century". In "Knowledge" except mentioned above: an objection to the criticism of the "Historical Letters", "Scientific Foundations of the History of Civilization", "New Science", "Positive Sociologists". "). In "Standings": "Theoreticians of the 40s in the science of beliefs." In the newspaper "Severny Vestnik": letters on philosophical subjects (it seems that only one was placed) 8, in another newspaper 9 articles about the just dead Thomas Carlyle and Longfellow, about the sociological works of Letourneau and Fulier, etc. In the early 80s, Lavrov suddenly opened up, as it were, the opportunity to implement the plan for the history of thought he had long prepared, and he, along with other works, prepared about 50 printed sheets of this work for its publication in Russia. But in December 1884, these hopes were in vain. Living in Paris in 1870-1873, Lavrov was elected a member of the Parisian Anthropological Society, where, among other things, he read the essay "L" idée du progrès dans l "anthropologie" in 1872 (printed and in a special brochure in 1873 ). At the foundation of the "Revue d" anthropologie "in 1872, Lavrov was invited by the famous Broca 10 to the editorial board and participated in it until his departure from Paris. As early as 1870, Lavrov became close friends with Varlin, who introduced him to the International - to section Ternes 11 in the autumn of 1870. Lavrov stayed in Paris throughout the first siege and almost the entire time of the Commune.In early May 1871, he went to Belgium, made a report to the Federal Belgian Council of the International on the state of affairs in Paris, urged the Council to to promote the Commune, and with the same object went to London to inquire whether the General Council, of whose power there was an exaggerated opinion, could help the Parisian insurgents, but saw the impossibility of both. Engels, with whom he became closer in later years. In July 1871 he returned to Paris. In 1872, Lavrov received from Russia an offer to edit a socialist journal abroad, for which he was promised support from both the socialist Russian youth and radical writers. With this in mind, Lavrov immediately wrote a draft of the Vperyod program, designating in the letter the literary forces to which it was intended to appeal. This initial draft, lithographed against the author's wishes in Russia, was mistaken by many for the final program of the magazine. The latter could be worked out only when the composition of employees was completely determined. Relying on radical literary forces in Russia turned out to be wrong; the journal was to appear as the exclusive organ of the social-revolutionary Russian youth, which allowed its program to acquire greater certainty. This program was placed in the first volume of the periodical collection Vperyod, which appeared in the summer of 1873. When founding this publication, they thought to find support in the numerous adherents of M. A. Bakunin, who then enjoyed great influence. But on the question of the organization of the journal there was a disagreement, which ended in a rupture, so that next to Vperyod, publications of groups of Bakuninists appeared abroad, directly hostile to it. The latter, as far as we know, met with more sympathy among the Russian youth of 1873-75 and were more widespread in Russia during that huge movement "to the people" that began in 1874. In order to publish Vperyod and start a Russian printing house, Lavrov moved in early 1874 to Zurich. Along with the editorial work of the journal, where many of his articles were published and where he constantly reviewed "What is being done in the homeland," Lavrov gave public lectures in Russian in Zurich on the role of the Slavs in the history of thought, on the history of thought in general, on the role of Christianity in history of thought and the like. A separate sheet was printed of his speech "To the Zurich students", delivered in connection with the order of the Russian government to remove them from Zurich. In March 1874 the printing house and editorial office of Vperyod were moved to London. From 1873 to 1876, Lavrov devoted almost all his time to publishing Vperyod, which was published until the end of 1874 as a non-periodical collection (I, 1873, Zurich; II, 1874, Zurich; III, 1874, London), from the beginning 1874 until the end of 1876 - in the form of a fortnightly newspaper in London, and thanks to the energy and serious attitude towards business of Lavrov's employees and his comrades in the printing house, not one of the 48 issues was late with the release. At the same time, in 1874, as a result of an attack by a former collaborator and later the founder of Nabat, P. N. Tkachev, Lavrov was forced to publish a polemical pamphlet in his defense ("Russian Revolutionary Youth"), which was generally completely inconsistent with his literary habits. At the end of 1876, at a congress of representatives of the Russian group that supported Vperyod, it was decided to stop the periodical publication of the newspaper and return to its previous form, and at the same time, some disagreement was expressed with the existing method of conducting the publication. Lavrov refused to edit. Appeared in 1876, his work "The state element in the future society" was the first (and only) issue of volume IV of the non-periodic "Forward". After Lavrov left the editorial office, another volume V appeared, in the compilation of which he did not participate and by which the activities of the Vperyod group, which no longer declared its existence either in Russia or abroad, ceased. In May 1877 Lavrov again moved to Paris. During the first years of this new period of his life he had very little contact with Russian active groups. He entered into relations with the French socialists, who in 1877 created their own organ "Egalité", took a small part in this organ and spoke twice at banquets arranged by these groups. He also said a few words over Blanca's grave at the latter's funeral. From the same 1877, Lavrov began to lecture in his apartment, and then in the hall on rue Pascal for Russian youth living in Paris, different issues theoretical socialism and the history of thought. In 1879, at his apartment, he delivered a speech about the Commune of 1871, which in 1880 was printed in a very widespread form in a special pamphlet, as the first volume of the Russian Social-Revolutionary Library. The second volume of the same edition (1881), which concludes the translation of Scheffle's book on socialism, contains a number of lengthy critical notes by Lavrov on this book. In the first volume of "Jahrbücher für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik" for 1879, under the initials P. L., an overview of the Russian social revolutionary movement from 1876 to 1879 is placed. By this period, 1878-79. also applies to the working out by a small circle formed around Lavrov of that plan for the secret organization of social revolutionary forces, which was mentioned by "Walka Klas" (No. 9), but which remained without any consequences. At the beginning of 1880, the arrest of Hartmann and the threat of extradition forced Lavrov to some activity among the French radical and socialist circles. This brought him closer to the editors of "Justice", with whom he has since maintained a very friendly relationship. The French radicals especially contributed to the successful outcome of this agitation, which ended with Lavrov's appeal to the prefect of police, who handed Hartmann over to Lavrov, telling him that Hartmann was released only because his identity was not proven, but that it could be proved the next day and that therefore it is best for him take him out of France immediately, leaving him for several hours, before the train departs, in order to avoid demonstrations, at the apartment of the head of the Kobe municipal police, who is personally acquainted with Lavrov. The latter agreed to everything - and a few hours later Hartmann left with a friend for London. From not a single word of Mr. Andriet could Lavrov then conclude that Hartmann was being expelled from France, as Andriet asserted in his memoirs. The expulsion decree was never sent to Hartmann. Since that time, Lavrov's connections with groups operating in Russia begin to be tied up again. He received an invitation to participate in underground publications that appeared in Russia, sent several articles there, but, due to a fatal combination of circumstances, almost all of these articles did not reach their destination, except for one published in Cherny Peredel 12 . In 1881, the Red Cross of the People's Will Society was founded in Russia. Wishing to establish a department abroad, it elected Vera Ivanovna Zasulich and Lavrov as authorized representatives for this. Publications in foreign journals, an invitation to donate to the newly founded society served as a pretext for Lavrov's expulsion from France. It was announced to him on February 10, 1882, and on February 13 he left for London. Shortly thereafter, the newspapers reported that a Russian woman in Geneva had shot a German, mistaking him for Lavrov. She was tried and found to be insane. Lavrov did not know her at all. His expulsion from France gave him far more attention than he could ever have achieved in France in the humble life he led there. Expressions of sympathy far exceeded anything he could have expected from foreigners. In London, Lavrov received an invitation from the "Executive Committee of Narodnaya Volya" to join with another person (Stepnyak) on the editorial board of the party's organ, which the latter intended to establish abroad under the name "Vestnik Narodnaya Volya". He replied in detailed letters, indicating the conditions under which he considered it possible for himself to conduct such a business, and in the spirit of these conditions, together with the proposed co-editor, worked out a program that essentially remained unchanged even when the first volume of the Messenger of Narodnaya Volya subsequently appeared. But unfortunately, all this correspondence again did not reach its destination. At the same time, Lavrov, at the request of the author, published under the name of Stepnyak, wrote a preface to his book Underground Russia. Three months after his arrival in London, in May 1882, it was possible for Lavrov to return to Paris, although the decree on his expulsion from France was not canceled. The case for publishing the Vestnik Narodnaya Volya dragged on for more than a year, when L. A. Tikhomirov’s arrival abroad and his appointment as editor instead of the one who had refused made it possible to start publishing. The first volume appeared in November 1883, the last (V) - in December 1886. This edition contains many articles signed by Lavrov. Outside of the articles, the content of which was determined by the very task of publishing, there are P.L.'s memoirs about Iv. Serg. Turgenev and criticism of the teachings of gr. L. N. Tolstoy under the title "Old Questions". Even before the appearance of Vestnik, Lavrov collaborated in the Calendar of Narodnaya Volya for 1883, placing there, with his signature, the article "A Look at the Past and Present of Russian Socialism." From December 1883 to June 1884, Lavrov taught in a private apartment for a small audience, mostly legal, the course "Review of the Basic Questions of Philosophy", from which he managed to read only the theoretical part. In the same 1883, after the funeral of I. S. Turgenev (at the funeral of which he was present simultaneously with Prince Orlov), Lavrov published a note in "Justice" revealing the fact that I. S. Turgenev participated materially in support of "Vperyod". This article aroused very sharp attacks against Lavrov in the entire legal liberal press of Russia, moreover, in Russkaya Mysl, an unknown author (according to some assumptions, a socialist emigrant and a personal acquaintance of Lavrov) spoke skeptically about the authenticity of Lavrov’s words, and Mr. Stasyulevich even expressed a direct opinion that Lavrov was bribed by Katkov 13 . On June 14 (2), 1885, completely without expecting this, Lavrov was honored by the celebration of his birthday by a group of Russians, and the participation of people from different parties and many completely legal Russians, speeches delivered by both Russians and socialist Poles, numerous letters and telegrams from various localities (by the way, one letter from political prisoners in a Russian prison and another from a group of exiles in Siberia) deeply touched Lavrov, who assessed his activities and his social role much more moderately than anything make the participants of the festival. Some of the writers believed that this was the twenty-fifth anniversary of Lavrov's literary activity, but it began earlier. To the previous notes relating to 1885, the following may be added for the last four years. Lavrov continued to live in Paris without a break. From time to time he read essays in the "Workers' Society", in meetings organized by the fund of Russian Parisian students, in the "Society of Russian Youth", in meetings organized by the Polish socialists. Of these, printed abroad: "Nationalism and Socialism", "The Role and Forms of Socialist Propaganda", "In Eight Years" (1871-1879-1887); as far as is known, a speech about the role of Jews in socialist propaganda and "Science and Life" were published in Russia. In addition, when Frey arrived in Paris, Lavrov read two essays in opposition to his sermon on the positive religion of mankind. For some time he lectured to a very small circle of comrades on sociology for socialist propagandists and prepared more or less extensive works from his previous articles on the "People of the Forties" and new articles on the science of religion; but all this was interrupted before completion or implementation. In March 1886, Lavrov decided to carry out his plan for a work on the history of thought, having already given up the hope of publishing this work in Russia under the existing conditions for the press there. He began to write it, not even having in mind the means for its publication. A publisher was found who promised to give money for the publication of the first volume, and with these funds from December 1887 Issues of the "Experience in the History of the Thought of Modern Times" began to appear in Geneva, in which the author summarizes all his previous works. While these lines are being written (October 1889), five issues have already appeared. - L. A. Tikhomirov's transition from revolutionary socialism to support of the Russian autocracy forced Lavrov to print the pamphlet Letter to Comrades in Russia (1888). -- Lavrov has recently been collaborating with The Socialist, published in Geneva, and Znamya, published in New York. In 1889, eight socialist Russian and Armenian groups (of which one was from St. Petersburg) sent Lavrov as a delegate to the Congress of Socialists, which took place July 14-21 in Paris, on the Rue Rochechouart. At this congress, Lavrov was elected to the bureau and delivered a lecture before the congress on the state of socialism in Russia. This essay was printed in French in the Société Nouvelle and in the Revue Socialiste. The prints were also published as a separate brochure, in a small number of copies. In 1889, Lavrov was elected chairman at a meeting of Russians on May 25 (13) in the Café Voltaire in memory of M. E. Saltykov and delivered a speech there on this occasion. During Lavrov's stay in Paris, he had to say farewell speeches several times over the graves of Russian emigrants, by the way, and over the grave of P. N. Tkachev on January 6, 1886 (December 25, 1885). On October 30 (18), 1889, through newspapers and through private invitations, he called the Russians in Paris to honor the memory of L. M. Kogan-Bernstein, who was hanged in Yakutsk on August 19 (7) of the same year.

II
DOCTRINE

In the numerous works of Lavrov, written in St. Petersburg, in exile and abroad for 34 years (1855-1889), and some of them only verbally stated in speeches and abstracts, it is more convenient to consider especially the following sections: 1) General worldview, 2) Ethics, 3) Sociology and socialism, 4) The construction of history and its relation to anthropology, and 5) Practical tasks in relation to Russia.

1. General outlook

In his childhood, Lavrov remained constantly at the stage of habitual belief, which did not cause reflection, and never passed through the phase of religious affect. For about 15-16 years, life prompted him to reflect on the philosophical problem of free will, responsibility and necessity, and he developed in himself the most decisive determinism in the form of theistic fatalism, which was reflected in various early poems, but most fully in the later - "Predestination (someone placed in one foreign collection). Devoting himself with passion to poetry, Lavrov attached to poetry in his youth a romantically exaggerated significance in thought and life, in particular, a conciliatory role between religion and science (which was again reflected in some poems, for example, in a later one, nowhere published: "The first chapter of the book Being"), and for a long time considered the theistic worldview the most poetic, as a form of thought, even when he renounced in his conviction any theistic element. Lavrov got acquainted with the arguments of materialism at the age of 22. For about 30 years, his world outlook was established in general terms, but for him it became clear and worked out in detail only in the process of literary work at the end of the 50s. Since then, he has not found it necessary or possible to change it in any essential point. To get acquainted with the general philosophical views of Lavrov, his previous articles in the "Encyclopedic Dictionary" on the "Anthropological point of view", in "Notes of the Fatherland" on the "Mechanical Theory of the World" and "Three Conversations on the Modern Significance of Philosophy" (1861) can serve as part of materials. ), partly later works, especially lectures on the main questions of philosophy, read by him in 1883-84, and some chapters of his last historical work 1 4 . For the worldview that Lavrov follows, he prefers to use the name of anthropologism. He sees the first manifestation of this trend in Protagoras; finds it possible to trace his views among the ancient skeptics, especially in the Second Academy, when the concept of the most probable was developed, later on among the new theoreticians of experience and among the sensualists; finds even more thorough preparation in Emmanuel Kant; in the fundamental principles of the philosophy of Ludwig Feuerbach, he recognizes the establishment of certain principles of anthropologism; then he finds important corrections and additions in this regard in the writings of the neo-Kantians, and especially of Albert Lange. At the same time, Lavrov admits that materialism, positivism, and evolutionism, while remaining one-sided, provided very important particular indications for the construction of a scientific philosophical system. Systems containing a supernatural principle - spiritualistic dualism and idealistic metaphysics, Lavrov considers as introducing the most pathological elements into philosophical constructions. In the journal articles listed in part above, Lavrov expressed his attitude to positivism, to the philosophical works of Spencer, to pessimism, to Hegelism, and to some other areas of idealism. For him, philosophical thought is specifically a unifying thought, theoretically creative in the sense of unification, drawing its material from knowledge, belief, practical motives, but introducing into all these elements the requirement of unity and consistency. From the point of view of anthropologism, according to Lavrov, it is impossible to know the so-called things in themselves, or the essence of things. The theoretical and practical worlds remain unknown in their essence and represent for a person the totality of knowable phenomena with an unknowable lining. One should resolutely renounce the knowledge of this metaphysical essence and confine oneself in philosophical construction to the harmonic unification of the world of phenomena. Precisely, it is necessary to find a point of departure, not unconditionally true, but inevitable for us according to the way our thinking is organized; it is necessary to evaluate, starting from this point, the most probable positions for this thinking, and it is necessary to place around these positions the whole field of thinking about phenomena according to their degree of probability for us. According to Lavrov, any thinking and action presupposes, on the one hand, the world as it is, with the law of causality linking phenomena; on the other hand, it implies the possibility of setting our goals and choosing means according to the criteria of the most pleasant, most useful, and proper. But both do not exist by themselves, but for us, therefore suggests human in the social system, with mutual verification and mutual development of opinions about the world and about the goals of activity. Consequently, the main point of departure of philosophical construction is Human, testing himself theoretically and practically and developing in a hostel. Criticism can only work on this ground of thinking, inevitably dogmatic for a person, to build a coherent and rational system of the world of thought and the world of practical activity. In this case, the most probable element, absolutely inevitable for any thinking and for any activity of a person, is, first of all, his own consciousness. Further, equally probable or equally inevitable assumptions of all thinking and all action are: 1) real world, homogeneous to what is established in the representation of man as his own body, the real world in which everything is connected with the law of necessity and in which the substrate is the basis, moving and causing representations; 2) the setting by the individual of goals and the choice of means for her activities in the world, of which she is a part. The third most likely, but quite necessary for scientific philosophy, is the provision on the possibility for a person who tests himself and develops in a hostel to critically evaluate: 1) the degree of decrease in the reality of the phenomena of the world he cognizes as these phenomena move away from the elementary concepts of space, time, movement moving; 2) the dignity of the goals and means of practical activity. A skeptical attitude towards the last step makes any scientific philosophy impossible. A skeptical attitude towards the latter makes any philosophy in general impossible. A skeptical attitude towards the first makes impossible any thinking, any activity, and in itself it is impossible. Recognizing critically the probability of these three stages of system construction, anthropologism admits three healthy areas of mature theoretical thinking: 1) knowledge; 2) free, conscious creativity of art; 3) critically unifying philosophical creativity. He recognizes the germinal or pathological area of ​​religious thinking, without denying its important role in history as any germinal phase in the evolution of mature forms. In the scientific system of anthropologism, human I, testing itself and developing in a community, is a philosophical center at the same time as a product of everything conceivable (namely, a product of the mechanical system of the conceivable world) and as a builder of everything conceivable in its striving: 1) for conceivable truth (which gives the method of logical thinking, established facts of exact knowledge, finally , the system of the most probable world outlook); 2) to a better life individual and society in their interaction (which gives the development of ideas about pleasure and the development of individual ideals in the individual; the development of the demand for artistic creativity in connection with the previous one; the development of the most just forms of community life; progressive history). For Lavrov, a religious mood is a pathological mood and directly opposite to scientific criticism. He returned to religious questions several times, most earlier in an article on "Hegelism" ("Library for Reading") and on "Modern German Theists", later in "The Development of the Doctrine of Mythical Beliefs" ("Modern Review"), in articles: "Civilization and wild peoples" ("Notes of the Fatherland"), "New Science" ("Knowledge"), "The theorists of the 40s in science and beliefs" ("Foundations"), in abstracts read in Paris on the occasion of Frey's arrival, finally, in his last historical work, especially in the issue of VI of the first volume. Recognizing the extensive role of religion in the evolution of mankind, especially in the prehistoric period, Lavrov tried to prove that, in fact, all the creativity of religious thought belongs to this period; in the course of history, under the name of religion, exclusively philosophical thought works - aesthetic and later moral; the religious element is continually atrophying and is found only in the experiences of the past, and the civilization of modern times is, in its essential characteristic, a secular civilization, striving to isolate from itself every religious element, which must finally disappear from it. In understanding the nature of Lavrov, on the basis of the previous one, it necessarily becomes a materialistic point of view, modified by evolutionism. He considers it necessary for man to understand differently the demand for the discovery of laws in the sciences of recurring phenomena and in the sciences of evolution, although he admits that this is a difference in points of view on the phenomena of nature, and not in the essential understanding of these phenomena. He denies the correctness of the extension of the concepts of life, consciousness and community life beyond the limits of the organic world and the extension of the concept of society to accumulations of individuals in which the presence of consciousness cannot be recognized. At the level of organic beings, he believes that the phenomenon of consciousness and the phenomenon of social solidarity are powerful weapons for organisms in the struggle for existence, and that therefore, in order to succeed in this struggle, man develops and must develop the concept of conscious solidarity of all mankind, set it as the goal of personal and social activity. and the goal of the present process of history, which develops the socialist solidarity of the cooperative labor of individuals mutually developing each other as a way out of the competition of individuals fighting among themselves for existence, for profit, for the monopoly of pleasures (this is mainly discussed in "The Tasks of Socialism" in the "Bulletin of Narodnaya Volya" ). When considering the biological differentiation of an individual and society, Lavrov especially emphasizes the difference between the ideal types of a biological and sociological organism, from which the former seeks to develop the dominance of consciousness in one element with consciousness falling asleep in all the others, while the latter seeks to develop the greatest possible consciousness in individual elements and on the development of this consciousness. of individuals establishes the ideal solidarity of the parts of the social organism with each other and with the whole. However, Lavrov devoted little of his work to questions relating to natural science, except for the role of introductory concepts in the history of human thought. Lavrov does not attach much importance to his few works on questions of logic, psychology and aesthetics. These include his notes on the Russian translation of Mill's "Logic", the article "On Principles and Axioms" (a work that remained in the manuscript), reports on German psychology in "Domestic Notes" of the 50s, an article on Kavelin's psychology in the same journal 70 -s, an article about Lessing's "Laocoon" in the "Library for Reading" of the late 50s or 60s 16 . The chapters related to psychology are somewhat more processed in "Experience in the History of Thought of Modern Times", Vol. 1, ch. 3. Lavrov returned several times to the question of the systematic classification of the sciences. This is the subject of his first work, published by him in the "Generally Entertaining Bulletin", then a series of articles - "Essays on Systematic Knowledge" in the journal "Knowledge" (unfinished), and he returned to this issue sporadically and later 17. At present, Lavrov recognizes that the rational classification of sciences must inevitably change with the development of knowledge, with the deepening of the philosophical understanding of man and his needs, and with the change in the practical distribution of the occupations of scientists and thinkers on issues that arise in different eras.

2. Ethics

Lavrov, in the course of his entire literary activity, was especially concerned with questions of ethics, starting with the brochure Essays on Practical Philosophy: Personality, continuing with an article in Otechestvennye Zapiski of 1870 (or 1871) Modern Teachings on Morality and Its Development (in connection with the book Lecky) and ending with the article "The Social Revolution and the Tasks of Morality" in the "Herald of the People's Will", without mentioning more casual or private works. For Lavrov, the realm of morality is not only not innate in man, but far from all individuals develop moral impulses in themselves, just as far from everyone reaches scientific thinking. Only the striving for pleasure is innate in man, and, among the pleasures, a developed person develops the pleasure of the moral life and puts it on the highest level in the hierarchy of pleasures. Most dwell on the ability to calculate benefits. Moral life begins in an elementary form with the development of an idea of ​​personal dignity and the desire to embody this dignity in life, which in this form becomes a moral ideal. Moral life receives a solid foundation when a person realizes that development is inherent in the process of this life, develops for himself the ability to enjoy his own development and the need to develop. By the very essence of this process, criticism is inseparable from it; the moral affect turns out to be the only affect that admits and requires criticism. This gives ethics, next to a subjective sign, the need to work out, develop, and put into practice a conviction, the first objective sign of a moral conviction, that it cannot deny criticism. The second objective sign of moral conviction already depends on the anthropological condition that a person cannot live outside society, and therefore his morality cannot be exclusively personal, but must at the same time be public morality, that is, allow and demand strengthening and expansion social solidarity. Hence the recognition of human dignity for other personalities and the requirement to treat them in accordance with their dignity, that is, the demand for justice as a formulating and exhaustive objective sign of public morality. According to Lavrov, all ethics is limited to the basic concepts of dignity, development, critical persuasion and justice. For a developed person, they are just as definite and obligatory as the concepts of geometry, all the rest of the rules of moral casuistry or morality have nothing solid, but are determined by their attitude under given circumstances to these basic concepts. The relationship of this ethics, which Lavrov considers scientific, to utilitarianism he establishes as follows: due to the fact that the majority of people are not refined to the level of moral development and remain at the stage of calculating benefits, Lavrov believes that the argumentation of utilitarianism, in most cases coinciding in conclusions with the fact that what he considers scientific ethics can be applied much more often in the moral conviction of thoughts and actions than the argumentation of scientific ethics, suitable only for already developed people. Incidentally, Lavrov admits that all utilitarians, who allow evaluation of utility not only quantitatively, but also qualitatively, are already more or less consciously standing on the basis of scientific ethics. Moreover, since the demand for justice in practice leads to the realization of the most just order of society, and this for the most part leads to struggle, in relation to which justice indicates only the necessity of struggle, and not its forms, then in defining these forms of struggle in particular, utilitarianism is almost the only guiding technique for a developed person.

3. Sociology and socialism

Lavrov developed sociological questions, in addition to his works on ethics, even more specifically in Historical Letters, in articles on socialism in Vperyod, in the Vestnik Narodnaya Volya, and in talks on sociology for a small circle of Russian socialist propagandists, talks, which are mentioned above. However, he did not devote special works to economic issues, recognizing himself as a student of Marx since he got acquainted with his theory, but mainly exploring sociological issues in relation to the theory of progress, ethics and history. For Lavrov, sociology is a science that studies the forms of manifestation, strengthening and weakening of solidarity between conscious organic individuals, and therefore embraces, on the one hand, all animal societies in which individuals have developed a sufficient degree of individual consciousness in themselves, on the other hand, not only those that already exist. forms of human community life, but also those social ideals in which a person hopes to realize a more solidary and, at the same time, more just community life, as well as those practical tasks that inevitably follow for the individual from the desire to realize his social ideals or at least bring closer their implementation. It is possible to apply the concept of an organism to society, but it must be used with extreme caution, keeping in mind the essential difference between a biological organism and a sociological one, which was indicated above. Social forms appear as historically changing products of the social creativity of individuals in view of their good, and therefore a person always has the right and duty to strive to change existing forms in accordance with his moral ideals, has the right and duty to fight for what he considers progress (constantly criticizing the main the requirements of ethics their ideas of progress), developing a social force capable of triumphing in such a struggle. On the basis of the basic requirements of ethics, the objective signs of progress are the simultaneous strengthening of conscious processes in the individual and solidarity in society, while expanding this solidarity more and more. more individuals. Of the four motives of human activity—custom, affect, interest, and conviction—the first is certainly opposed to criticism and progress, which always consists in the gradual liberation of man as he develops from the bonds of custom (in the form of habits or traditions). Personal affect is now a hindrance, now an aid to progress, and acquires an ever more recent character only to the extent that it passes into a social affect and, subject to criticism, becomes a moral affect. Due to the fact that the majority is guided only by the calculation of utility, interest is still the most general social impulse, and in every historical epoch a progressive movement is stable only when the interests of the majority coincide in their social ideals with the convictions of the most developed minority. In the present era, socialism as a social ideal fully satisfies these requirements: it represents the interests of the working majority, to the extent that it is imbued with consciousness of the class struggle; it realizes for the developed minority the ideal of the most just society, allowing the most conscious development of the individual with the greatest solidarity of all working people, an ideal capable of embracing all of humanity, destroying all distinctions between states, nationalities and races; it exists for individuals who have given the most thought to the course of history, and is the inevitable result of the modern process of economic life. Therefore, the calculation of the interest of every worker, simultaneously with the moral affect of a developed personality who wants to repay humanity for his development, which cost so much to previous generations, and with the desire of this personality to realize the most just society, finally, simultaneously with the impulse of a person who understands best to facilitate the necessary process of history, should encourage every developed personality to join the ranks of socialists, to strive to strengthen their organization as a social force, to fight vigorously against all obstacles to the realization of their social ideal and to promote this realization with all the tools of word and deed available to the individual.

4. History and its relation to anthropology

A rather significant part of Lavrov's works, even monographic ones, is of a historical nature. He always had a tendency to consider every phenomenon in its genesis, and therefore the introductions to his various works very often occupy no less space than the works themselves; many of the works he began stopped at historical introductions to them. By the middle of the 60s, he was increasingly engaged in plans for generalizing historical works. First of all, he draws attention to the history of science and to the role that science plays in history in general. These include an unfinished essay on the history of the physical and mathematical sciences, read by him and published in two official editions, and lectures on the influence of science on military affairs 18 ; later, some articles were devoted to this subject on the role of science in the history of civilization, on its role especially in the period of the Renaissance, etc. begins to develop a plan for the history of thought. In one of the collections 19 of that time a short article "A Few Thoughts on the History of Thought" was printed, and under arrest a complete program of world history was sketched in pencil, mainly from the point of view of the development of thought. In exile in Vologda, for three years he developed this program and the plan of history, consisting of fragments of different authors, but grouped systematically according to a strictly defined program of subordination of the secondary to the essential. This preparatory material fills entire notebooks, and Lavrov even worked out one small epoch from medieval history in some detail using the materials he had at that time. A similar experience, which had more significance as a program than as a developed work, was published by him in "Notes of the Fatherland" for the period of the Renaissance and Reformation - "The Role of Science in the Renaissance and Reformation", but with a primary emphasis on the appearance of an element of science. At the same time, the "Historical Significance of Science and the Book of Uevel" and in "Knowledge" - "The Scientific Foundations of the History of Civilization" were placed there. In 1870-71, a friend of that time abroad 20 (who subsequently completely renounced relations with him) suggested that he study the history of modern times from the point of view already indicated, and the preparation of this work began (however, it soon ceased, since the changeable nature of the personality, which offered work, did not dwell on this plan for long). From 1873 to 1875, Lavrov finds an opportunity to start seriously on the "Experience in the History of Thought", and its first issue appears, limited only to the general plan and the beginning of the period of preparation of thought in general. But since 1875, even this is interrupted. Realizing that in this case the plan was too broad, Lavrov continued to work it out and prepare its execution at least in parts, without losing hope that its implementation would at least somehow move forward. In the early 80s, as mentioned above, he had for some time reason to think that it would be possible for this work to appear within Russia. But at the end of 1884, this turned out to be completely impossible. Then, from the spring of 1886, he began to prepare for publication abroad, no longer embarrassed by any censorship conditions existing in Russia, that "Experience in the History of the Thought of the New Time", which is now being printed, but about which, in Lavrov's present years, there is reason to doubt whether he will be able to finish this work, and in any case it must be said that Lavrov started it somewhat late. Starting it without the hope of having a publisher for it now, Lavrov prefaced the text with a preface in which he explained to the prospective later reader the conditions for the origin of this work and its relation to the previous ones. When he got the opportunity to publish the first volume, he did not find it necessary to publish this somewhat intimate explanation with the reader, leaving it to himself to redo it at the end of the work (if this work could be completed) as "an explanation of the author with the reader" 2l. The main features of Lavrov's historical understanding are as follows. History as a process is a process of development, i.e., non-repeating phenomena, and differs from other similar processes in that its phenomena are due to the positive or negative manifestation of progress in them, i.e., an increase or decrease in consciousness in a person and solidarity between personalities in mutual connections between these elements. History as a science is the search for the law of succession in the phases of the development of consciousness in individuals and solidarity between individuals. Its main task is to separate for each epoch, in the area of ​​consciousness and solidarity, the characteristic features of the epoch from the experiences of the old in it and from the germinal preparations for the new. Therefore, for Lavrov, the most important issues of history as a science include its differentiation from anthropology and its division into periods according to the essential features of the process of historical development. Anthropology, its systematic division and its state in the 60s, Lavrov devoted several articles in journals during his Vologda exile. These include "Anthropological Essays" in "Modern Review", "Anthropologists in Europe" and "Civilization and Wild Peoples" in "Notes of the Fatherland", "Review of Foreign Anthropological Literature" in "Bibliographer", and finally, small notes in "Vologda Vedomosti" . As a member of the Paris Anthropological Society and contributor to Broca's journal, he published something on this subject in France as well. The issue of delimiting anthropology from history is especially devoted to Lavrov's works "Civilization and wild peoples", the brochure "De l" idée du progrès dans l "anthropologie", and this issue is analyzed both in the "Experience in the History of Thought" and in "Experience in the History of Thought new time" (especially see "Introduction", ch. 2). The main difference for Lavrov is as follows: anthropology includes all the activities of an individual and a group of individuals, unconscious, instinctive, and that share of conscious activity, which is adaptation to the existing one; history includes the activity of the individual and society, which consists in developing ideals of the best and in striving change existing in accordance with these ideals. The characteristic sign of participation in historical life for the individual and for society is therefore the enjoyment of development and the need for development. This is due to the isolation of activities that unite philosophical thoughts from life according to custom; but the transition to historical life becomes fully conscious only with the isolation of the activity of critical thought. In this sense, it can be said that historical progress consists in the reworking of culture (i.e., ordinary forms of life) with the help of thought and in the development of a series of civilizations in which there is less and less the share of custom, and more and more the share of conscious thought, at first in the form of interests striving for the useful (of which economic interests predominate for the most part), then in the form of convictions striving for the moral (first religious and metaphysical, then more and more real and scientific). Thus, the highest history remains of all mankind in its anthropological period before the appearance of historical civilizations; all the peoples remain who have not developed these civilizations; there remain in the midst of historical civilizations all individuals who, either by external reasons, were still unable to participate in historical life, or, having this opportunity, turned out to be incapable of participating in it, but for internal reasons. All of them are the property of anthropology in that part of it, which, noting biological features, mainly explores among people the diversity of forms of ordinary cultures, in parallel with how zoology studies the culture of ants, bees, sparrows, beavers, etc. Essential questions for each epochs of history are for Lavrov the following: how was the civilization of this epoch prepared in the past? What was the distribution of shares in this era that belonged, on the one hand, to ordinary culture and the experience of previous eras, on the other hand, to the development of thought that sought to translate into life the interests of individuals and groups that were part of the civilization of the era, as well as to translate into life the convictions developed minority? How in the life of this epoch, consciously and unconsciously, were the subsequent epochs of the same civilization and the civilization of further periods prepared? The main role here is played, on the basis of the foregoing, firstly, by the development of the consciousness of individuals, insofar as it expanded solidarity between people, and secondly, by strengthening and expanding solidarity between individuals, insofar as it contributed to the development of consciousness in these individuals. Therefore, for history as a science, the periods that preceded history as a process of preparing human thought by cosmic and geological conditions that existed for man on earth, biological processes of the development of consciousness and community life in the world of biological organisms, and finally, those instinctive phenomena and the work of thought under the rule of custom and prehistoric man who formed the ground for historical life. This soil is of particular interest in various forms of prehistoric technology, in various prehistoric methods of decorating life, in the first attempts at the work of theoretical thought in prehistoric man, where the largest share belongs to religious thought, and finally, in the creativity of primitive social forms that are the subject of study of the embryology of society. When dividing history into periods, but the essential features of the process of historical development, Lavrov was guided by the following principles. At first, isolated national civilizations are created, in which the work of critical thought is almost imperceptible and which form a layer, as it were, of a new, more developed custom. With the advent of critical thought in philosophical schools independent of religious custom, the first attempts at universal universalism appear, first for a minority of exceptionally developed and independently thinking individuals, for whom the same methods of criticism and creativity are available, then for all subjects of one state, covered by the action of the same consciously established law, regardless of existing customs and nationalities; finally, for all believers in one universal religion that knows no boundaries either political or ethnic. All these attempts are unsuccessful because they ignore the economic conditions, which give rise to an increasingly fierce class struggle and therefore do not allow the establishment of lasting solidarity. The new European civilization is characterized primarily by the circumstance that it is and must be a secular civilization, gradually singling out all the religious elements. It begins by contrasting the isolation of states that know no solidarity among themselves with universalism both in the field of exact science, freed from all the bonds of custom and religious dogma, and in the field of industry, which creates world economic interests, independent of political ones. Newest period of this civilization is marked by the political dominance of the bourgeoisie, the representatives of the universal industry, and the dominance of science (in its highest form, sociology) in a political and economic field that was previously not part of the realm of science. The vast majority of humanity still remains outside of history, partly as belonging to non-historical peoples; partly as belonging to the classes of historical peoples, so suppressed by the struggle for existence that, due to external conditions, it is impossible for them to participate in history; partly as belonging to the ruling classes of the advanced peoples, but due to internal impotence, has not developed either the enjoyment of development or the need for it, and therefore remains with the lower needs and tastes of the savage. Historical evolution takes place, as it has taken place since the beginning of historical time, only in a minority intelligentsia, who alone knew the pleasure of development, felt the need for it, and at the same time began to live historical life. At present, this developed and developing minority has already developed an ideal of personal dignity and a social order capable of embracing all individuals and tribes to whom the need for development will become available. The universalistic ideal of humanity, bound by the interests of collective labor and the conviction of the need for a universal, just social system, now stands face to face in the theory of scientific socialism with the sharpening and expanding class struggle, from which the old system does not and cannot find a way out, and which is increasingly manifested as the main obstacle to human solidarity. In the struggle for existence, which has passed from the world of organisms in general into human history, the formation of a solidary coexistence of all mankind will make it possible to direct the more energetically collective work of the latter towards the three main tasks of the historical process, namely: to dominate nature, to establish the kingdom of man over the animal world, and to eliminate struggle for existence among mankind, when reasonable cooperation will replace competition in all its forms. From this point of view, the philosophy of history for all its past periods consists in the gradual destruction of the realm of custom in favor of the realm of competing interests, with a slow expansion of the elements of the realm of moral motives; for the present, in the task of establishing a socialist system, which provides the first historical ground for building a realm of moral convictions; for the future, in the more or less gradual destruction of competing interests and the remnants of the realm of custom in favor of the dominance in all particulars of the social order of the realm of moral convictions. Hence, it is not only difficult, but even almost impossible, to draw for oneself in detail any satisfactory picture of the possible future order of society: all the elements that the imagination can supply us with such a picture have to be drawn from the past and the present, where custom or competition of interests almost exclusively dominated. , while moral convictions, if they were manifested, then in personal activities, and not in forms of community life; the picture of the future order, to which everyone aspires developed people of our era, should present us with forms of community life, imbued with the dominance of moral convictions. Therefore, the developed person of our time has no reason to indulge in fruitless dreams about the details of the form of the future order to which he aspires. He must have in mind only the general characteristic features of this system; in the struggle for the socialist system, he strives to destroy modern forms in favor of better social forms, but for the first time still analogous to modern forms, since the immediate system of the future must be the result of the existing class struggle. The developed man of our time strives to embody in his personal life the greatest possible share of solidarity with convinced socialists and the greatest possible share of justice in relation to people in general, under the existing conditions of this class struggle.

5. Practical tasks in relation to Russia

The socialist ideal of Lavrov was gradually understood. From an early age, familiar with the utopians of the beginning of our century, but not seeing the soil on which socialist ideals could be realized, Lavrov at first, having secured a place for himself in literature, tried only to help remove obstacles to a clear consciousness of truth and justice in the individual and obstacles to the consciousness of the need for solidarity. in society; he tried to do this by spreading a clearer understanding and a more scientific outlook. But from the very beginning of his literary activity, the need for a political and social revolution was obvious to him, and indications of this can be easily found in his printed works, especially in his poems. Nevertheless, even at that time he did not see grounds not only for a social revolution, but even for political action outside the slow preparation of minds. When, during the unrest of the early 1960s, a deputation of officers from the Artillery Academy came to ask his advice as to whether they should take part in the street demonstration that was being prepared, he positively advised them not to do so, adding that if the moment came when he deemed it necessary, not only will he tell them this, but he himself will go with them. For quite a long time, Lavrov admitted the possibility of harmony between the interests of the personality of the ruling class and the interests of the majority of the subordinate class; allowed this even for a person guided only by the calculation of his own benefit, and not by the development of moral convictions. This assumption was one of the biggest, in his opinion, mistakes, which he had to renounce later, but which left a mark in many of his works. The appearance of the International and his acquaintance with it convinced Lavrov, firstly, of the existence of a real ground for a social revolution, and secondly, of the existence of an irreconcilable struggle of class interests, over which the developed personality of the ruling classes can rise only by the strength of its moral conviction. Then Lavrov considered it his duty to promote a social revolution in the form required by the program of the International. He considered a political revolution for Russia in that era useful only in close connection with a social revolution, as a revolution based on a rather broad popular movement. He considered the political upheaval in Russia, which was alien to economic tasks, to be harmful, as it formed the basis for the same class exploitation of the people, which takes place in the West under the form of liberal institutions. Nevertheless, he did not allow for a minute to renounce the political opposition to the existing absolutism, considering it necessary, as far as possible, in every way to win back a share of power from the government, to act in the sense of introducing an economic element into all political demands, and this by attracting the largest possible proportion of the lower classes. society to political agitation. But Lavrov was clearly aware that neither the people were ready for a social upheaval, nor the intelligentsia had sufficiently assimilated the sociological understanding and the moral conviction that alone can develop in the last sincere socialists. He therefore considered it necessary to prepare for a social revolution in Russia by developing scientific sociological thought among the intelligentsia and by propagating socialist ideas among the people. Therefore, he gladly accepted the duty of socialist propaganda in Russia when he was offered the editorship of Vperyod. According to the previous one, he set the task of his supporters to prepare a social revolution in Russia by developing in the propagandists of socialism, knowledge in general, knowledge of Russia in particular, socialist habits in private life and propaganda of socialism in the people, propaganda, which, according to Lavrov, was supposed to simultaneously serve and weapon of agitation against the government. The questions of centralism and federalism, which then so worried Bakuninists and their opponents, he considered secondary and their solution dependent on the random development of the environment and the distribution of intelligent forces in it. An advocate of the demand to reduce in every epoch the state element in society to the possible minimum, and hoping that with the complete domination of the socialist system this minimum would come close to zero, Lavrov was never a supporter of anarchism in the present, especially in the organization of a revolutionary party. He most fully expressed his ideas about the state and his attitude to the political tasks of the revolution in Russia in the mid-70s in his work The State Element in the Future Society (Forward, IV, issue I and the only one). Lavrov left the editorial office of the journal only when it seemed to him that his comrades, the propagandists of Vperyod, by narrowing their program of action too narrowly, especially among the intelligentsia, were taking away from their party any militant character and therefore were not vigorously combating the obstacles presented to the propaganda of socialism. political system Russian Empire . When this lack of energy in the fight against local conditions led to the disintegration of the pure propaganda party in Russia, Lavrov continued, as far as his position permitted, socialist propaganda in person. Not being able, due to his long absence from Russia, to refute the ever more stubbornly repeated assurances of the personalities of the revolutionary groups that propaganda among the people in Russia has become impossible, and therefore the training of propagandists is aimless, that "propaganda by fact" is necessary, excitation of the revolutionary spirit by example, decisive blows inflicted on the government, Lavrov remained of the personal opinion that with skill and determination, propaganda would be possible, although it should have gone more slowly and required many sacrifices. He considered it necessary in any case, along with all other methods of agitation against the government and direct action against it, since he could not imagine that any political upheaval, beneficial to the majority and, therefore, having in mind economic tasks, could to take place without the support of its popular movement, which always presupposes propaganda. In the essays he read in Paris in 1877-82, he returned many times to pointing out the dangers that anarchist principles and terrorist methods pose to the success of a revolutionary party in Russia. He saw with joy that in Russia itself the anarchist principles were gradually disappearing, but he could not fail to notice that, next to the weakening of anarchism in Russia, all groups, except for the so-called terrorists, were losing their importance in the movement and the success of the revolutionary cause in Russia all more identified with the success of these "terrorists". Therefore, he resolutely rejected the proposal to become the head of a foreign publication that declared war on this party, and considered the war against Narodnaya Volya to be directly harmful to the cause in Russia, if the history of the Russian revolutionary movement put forward this party in the first place, which set itself the immediate task of shaking the autocracy, and then its destruction. Nevertheless, Lavrov only entered into an alliance with this party when he was convinced that it remained socialist, recognized the importance of socialist propaganda, and directed his blows mainly against the Russian government only as against the main obstacle to the spread of socialist ideas in Russia. Since then, while continuing his participation in the editorial board of the Vestnik Narodnaya Volya, he regarded his work in this publication as a theoretical understanding of those socialist principles that remained the basis of the activity of this revolutionary party in Russia, in an era when it was alone, in in the late 70s and early 80s, was able to develop something similar to a social force. For him, the question of the need for Russia, before the establishment of socialism in it, to more or less fully survive the capitalist system, similar to the one that had the opportunity to fully develop in the West of Europe, is a question that has recently caused quite lively disputes among Russian socialists, -- is a question that has only speculative significance and does not in the least change the practical tasks of the Russian socialist-revolutionary. As soon as an organized party is formed in Russia, sincerely socialist, able to defend itself in the social struggle, able to attract manpower to itself and organize them for energetic action, Lavrov believes that, in accordance with his moral and socialist convictions, he, like any convinced socialist, is obliged, not even fully agreeing with all the points of the program of the party with which he enters an alliance, and not fully approving all its actions, to support by all means that real social revolutionary force that will be able to fight more or less successfully in our homeland for socialist ideals against the obstacles opposed to these ideals by the environment. In an era when in Russia there is no such organized social force with a social revolutionary direction, personal propaganda of socialist ideas, not in the name of any existing party, but directly in the name of these ideas themselves, remains for him, as for all convinced socialists, in his opinion, mandatory, despite any setbacks, obstacles and slowdowns. The process of disintegration of the modern capitalist system is carried out with inevitable necessity; sooner or later it must bring triumph to socialism and at the same time carry away those political forms that are incompatible with it. In this case, the practical tasks of the Russian socialist are identified with the tasks of the socialist-revolutionary of all countries. The Russian socialist must work for the triumph of socialism, spread its principles in the minds of the people around him, and implement them as much as possible by the example of his own life. He must remove, as far as he can, the obstacles to the success of socialism. One of these is the political forms that support capitalism or constitute (like autocracy) the experience of an even more archaic layer of civilization. As far as possible, such forms should be eliminated immediately, without waiting for the organization of a workers' party in the country, which is a necessary condition for a rational social revolution. But at the same time, next to this, it is necessary to strive for the implementation of this necessary condition. September 1885 and October 1889

NOTES

This autobiographical article was written in 1885, when representatives of different parties, Russian and Polish, were celebrating the birthday of P. L. Lavrov in Paris and the alleged 25th anniversary of his literary activity (the latter actually began earlier). Lavrov sent it to Narodnaya Volya L. O. Yasevich for publication in Nos. 11-12 of Narodnaya Volya in 1885, but it was not possible to place it in the issue, and it was published as a separate hectographed brochure (see Ways of the Revolution, 1926, No 4 (7), Kharkov, p. 47). In 1889, Lavrov added to it. For the first time, "Biography-Confession" was published in No. K) and 11 of Vestnik Evropy for 1910 under the heading "P. L. Lavrov about himself"; reprinted in "Selected Works on Socio-Political Themes", vol. I, 1934. The article was checked against a handwritten copy kept in the Lavrov fund (TsGAOR, f. 1762, he. 1, item 1). 1 Lavrov's first printed work is the poem "Bedouin", published in "Library for Reading", 1841, vol. 46. 2 See P. L. Lavrov. Fav. op. on the social-polit. themes, vol. I, 1934, pp. 108-117. 3 I mean the books of the English historian Donnald Mackenzie Wallace(1841--1900) "Russia", London, 1877 ("Russia", in two volumes, Russian translation of St. Petersburg, 1880--1881) and a French historian Alfred Nicholas Rambeau(1842--1905) "Histoire de la RiiSvSie" ("History of Russia"), 1877. 4 Meaning: the magazine "Illustration", the newspaper "St. Petersburg Vedomosti", "Encyclopedic dictionary compiled by Russian scientists and writers", magazine "Foreign Bulletin", "Sovremennik", "Marine Collection", "Artillery Journal". 5 Afanasiev-Chuzhbinsky, Alexander Stepanovich(1817--1875) - ethnographer-fiction writer, author of the book "Journey to South Russia" (St. Petersburg, 1861). 6 This is an article. "On the question of anthropological studies of the Vologda province", placed in No. 43 of the "Vologda provincial journals" for 1868 7 We are talking about the article "Medieval Rome and the papacy in the era of Theodora and Marotia", published in the Women's Herald, 1867, No 7. 8 The exact title is "Letters on the latest phenomena in the field of philosophy and natural science", published in the newspaper "Severny vestnik" No. 62 and 111 for 1877. 9 This refers to the newspaper "Russian Courier", where the articles were published: "Chronicle of Social Sciences. N. A. Fulier. modern science on Society" in Nos. 169, 177, 183, 246 and 252, 1880; Foreign Literary Chronicle, in Nos. 20 and 21, 1881; Thomas Carlyle, in Nos. 54 and 68, 1882. 10 Broca Paul(1824-1880) - a famous French anthropologist, physiologist and surgeon, founded the Anthropological Society in Paris. Broca's invitation of Lavrov to the editorial staff of the Anthropological Journal founded by him testifies to the fact that Broca highly valued Lavrov as a scientist. 11 Turn section was located at the place of residence of Lavrov in the 17th arrondissement of Paris - Batignolles. 12 We are talking about the article "A few words about the organization of the party," published in No. 3 of Cherny Peredel, 1881. 13 Most of this phrase, beginning with the word "moreover," has been restored from a handwritten copy. 14 This refers to "Experience in the history of thought of the new time", which began to appear in 1888 and is Lavrov's "last historical work" for 1889, when he supplemented the "Biography-Confession". 15 Already from this self-characterization of Lavrov, the eclectic nature of his views is visible, to which N. G. Chernyshevsky and F. Engels drew attention. 16 The following works of Lavrov are meant: 1) "Foreword and notes to the book by D. S. Mill "System of Logic", 2 volumes, St. Petersburg, 1865--1867. In 1887 the book was republished by M. O. Wolf no change, but since at that time Lavrov was already an emigrant, she was arrested until the name Lavrov was removed from her.At the same time, the remaining copies of the edition of 1865-1867, when Lavrov was not yet a "political criminal emigrant" , were freely sold, and the rumor about the arrest of the second edition led to the fact that the first edition with the name Lavrov was bought like hot cakes at 20-30 rubles per copy (see. S. F. Librovich. Arrest on Mill's Logic. A page from the history of the Russian book. "Bulletin of Literature" by M. O. Wolf, 1911, No 3); 2) Article " Current state psychology" (about Benek, Lazarus, etc.) in "Notes of the Fatherland", 1860, No. 4; 3) Article "G. Kavelin as a Psychologist" in Otechestvennye Zapiski, 1872, No 8, 10, 11; 4) An article about Lessing's book "Laocoön, or the Limits of Painting in Poetry" (M., 1859), in "Library for Reading", 1860 , No 3. 17 This refers to the article "A few words about the system of sciences" in the "Generally Entertaining Bulletin", 1857, No. 14, and a number of articles in "Knowledge", 1871, No. I; 1872, Nos. 1, 3 and 8; 1873, Nos. 4 and 6. In 1866, before his exile, Lavrov edited the translation of G. Spencer's book "The Classification of Sciences" made by N. T. Tiblen, published in the same year in St. Petersburg, and wrote the article "The Purpose and Significance of Classification Sciences", published in the "Book Bulletin", 1866, No. 13 and 14/15, and containing an exposition of the classification of Comte and Spencer. 18 Meaning: "Essay on the history of physical and mathematical sciences" in the "Artillery Journal" (1865, No. 4--8 and 10--12) and in the "Naval Collection" (1865, No. 1, 3-5 and 7 --12), there are also separate editions of the "Essay" (St. Petersburg, 1866 and 1867); "Influence of the development of exact sciences on the successes of military affairs and especially artillery" in the "Artillery Journal" (1865 No. 4, 6 and 7) and in a separate publication (St. Petersburg, 1865). 19 "Nevsky collection", 1867, vol. I, signature: "P-ov". 20 This refers to Isidor Albertovich Goldsmith (1845--1890) - editor-publisher of the journals "Knowledge" and "Slovo". 21 Volume I of "Experience in the History of Thought in Modern Times" under the title "Problems of the History of Thought. Book I. Before History" was published in Geneva in 1889; Volume I, Part 2, Book I, Section 2 - "Anthropological Life" - ibid., 1894; Lavrov prepared for publication part 3 (the last) of the first volume, section 3 - "The Eve of History" and section 4 - "Experiences of the Prehistoric Period". In the future, Lavrov planned to publish volume II, book 2 - "Historical preparation of the thought of the new time"; volume III and IV, book 3 - "Dualism of state and science"; Volume V, Book 4 -- "Sociology and Socialism. Conclusion. Tasks of the Future." In a compressed form, the idea of ​​this work is embodied in the publication "The most important moments in the history of thought", M., 1903 (the preface is marked with the date: May 1899), which was published after Lavrov's death under the pseudonym A. Dolenga. 2 2 Lavrov's poems "Russian people" and "Forward" and three articles are meant: "Letters on various contemporary issues"; the first and third were published in the magazine "Generally Entertaining Bulletin" (No. 1 and 20, 1857), and the second, under the changed title "Harmful Principles" - in the magazine "Illustration" (No. 39, 1858). See about them in detail in the first volume of "Selected essays on social and political topics" by P. L. Lavrov, M., 1934, pp. 20-21, 474).

(1823-06-14 )

Biography

Last years Lavrov's life, without breaking ties with the revolutionary movement (he edited "Materials for the History of the Russian Social Revolutionary Movement"), devoted to writing theoretical works on the history of human thought: "The Tasks of Understanding History" and "The Most Important Moments in the History of Thought". In his heritage, which has not been fully identified (825 works, 711 letters are known; about 60 pseudonyms have been disclosed), there are articles in the Russian legal press, political poems, including the well-known New Song (the text was published in the newspaper Vperyod! , 1875, No. 12 of July 1), which later received the name “Working Marseillaise” (“Let's renounce the old world ...”), which A. A. Blok called among “foul poems rooted in the Russian heart ... you can’t tear it out otherwise than with blood…" .

Lavrov died in Paris; buried in the Montparnasse cemetery. His last words: “Calling… live well. It is ending… my life is ending.”

The granddaughter of P. L. Lavrov Kopyleva (Rozenfeld) Olga Emmanuilovna (1875-1939) is a Russian writer. She learned about the death of her grandfather while in exile for leftist beliefs. In memory of him, she began to sign her literary works with a pseudonym O. Mirtov.

Philosophical views of Lavrov

According to his philosophical views, Lavrov was an eclecticist who tried to combine the systems of Hegel, Feuerbach, F. Lange, Comte, Spencer, Proudhon, Chernyshevsky, Bakunin, Marx into one doctrine. The main feature of his mosaic worldview was positivistic agnosticism. From the point of view of official Soviet philosophy, the populists, represented by Lavrov, took a step back from Chernyshevsky - from materialism towards positivism.

As a historian and sociologist, Lavrov was an idealist and subjectivist. He assessed the process of historical development from the point of view of a subjectively chosen moral ideal. History is ultimately made by an educated and moral minority of their own free will ("critical thinkers"). Therefore, the first task of revolutionary leaders is the development of a moral ideal, towards the realization of which they must strive in their practical activities. Lavrov gave the following formulation to his ideal: “The development of the individual in physical, mental and moral terms, the embodiment of truth and justice in social forms” [ ] .

The moralizing and academic nature of Lavrov's socio-political program made him the leader of the right wing of the Russian revolutionaries of the 1870s, leading to the creation of a number of groups of his followers, for example, "Bashentsev". The ensuing revolutionary upsurge led to Lavrov's rapid loss of popularity and the transition of hegemony in the revolutionary movement to Bakunism. Calling for the unity of all socialist trends, Lavrov sought to include elements of Marxism in his system. Despite this, Lavrov's socialism was typically populist in nature (the doctrine of the special ways of development of Russia, of the peasantry as the bearer of the socialist ideal, etc.). However, the connection of the Lavrists with the international labor movement, their great attention to work among the urban workers led to the fact that Lavrism played a certain role in the training of personnel for the first Social Democratic circles in Russia.

Attitude towards art

In matters of art, Lavrov initially (in the 1850s and 1860s) stood on the position of pure art. In the 1870s-1880s, Lavrov began to appreciate art from the point of view of its content matching the ideals of the revolutionary intelligentsia (the article “Two Old Men”, 1872, - about V. Hugo and J. Michelet - and others), without ceasing to talk about “slenderness forms." Reactionary art is recognized by him not only as harmful, but also without aesthetic value. Lavrov was one of the first to study revolutionary and labor poetry (the articles "Lyrics of the thirties and forties" - about

LAVROV Pyotr Lavrovich (pseudonyms - Mirtov, Kedrov, Stoik, etc., more than 60 in total), Russian philosopher, sociologist, publicist, one of the ideologists of populism; colonel (1858). Nobleman.

He graduated from the Artillery School in St. Petersburg (1842), a student of M. V. Ostrogradsky. He taught mathematics there (1844-66), at the same time at the Mikhailovsky Artillery Academy (1855-66; professor since 1858) and the Konstantinovsky Military School. Since 1852 he published articles on issues military equipment, physical and mathematical sciences, natural sciences, pedagogy.

In his youth, Lavrov became acquainted with the works of the French socialists C. Fourier, C. A. Saint-Simon, P. J. Proudhon, and later was influenced by the positivist philosophers O. Comte and G. Spencer. In 1841 he published the first poem "Bedouin", later he wrote freedom-loving poems (they differed in the lists; in 1856 he sent 5 poems to A. I. Herzen in London, including "Prophecy", "To the Russian people", which were published in the collection "Voices from Russia", 1857, book 4). The "New Song" ("Let's Renounce the Old World!...", 1875, later called the "Working Marseillaise") gained wide popularity. In his first publicistic article, Letters on Various Contemporary Issues (1857), Lavrov proclaimed the principle of the unity of knowledge and action, which became his life credo.

In the late 1850s and early 1860s, Lavrov actively participated in public life: in 1861 he was elected treasurer of the Society for Assistance to Needy Writers and Scientists (Literary Fund), signed public protests against the arrest of M. L. Mikhailov, spoke in defense of participants in student unrest in St. Petersburg, directed against the reforms of E. V. Putyatin. At the same time, he developed his “practical philosophy” (called it anthropologism) (articles “Hegelism”, 1858; “Essays on practical philosophy. 1. Personality”, 1860; “Three conversations on the modern meaning of philosophy”, 1861), in the center of which - a whole person, a person "in his real unity, as feeling and acting, as desiring and knowing." According to Lavrov, an "internally free" personality inevitably comes into conflict with an unjust society, its moral duty is to change this society, to participate in the historical movement. He represented an ideal social system in the form of "moral socialism" based on the principles of "social solidarity" and "justice", a voluntary union of free and morally developed individuals. Lavrov himself, having come to the conclusion about the truth of the socialist idea, considered himself "morally obliged" to seek its practical implementation. In the summer of 1862, Lavrov became close to the underground organization "Land and Freedom" of the 1860s, although, by his own admission, contacts with it were "insignificant." In the article "Gradually" (end of 1862), from a revolutionary-democratic position, he condemned the slow, in his opinion, course of government reforms.

Head of the editorial board of philosophical sciences, then editor of " encyclopedic dictionary compiled by Russian scientists and writers ”(vols. 1-5, 1861-63). Since 1863, he actually headed the editorial office of the journal "Foreign Bulletin" (officially not approved in the position due to a negative review of the 3rd department of His Own Imperial Majesty's Chancellery). He maintained close ties with the leaders of the women's movement (member of the Women's Labor Society, etc.).

In April 1866, after the assassination attempt by D. V. Karakozov on Emperor Alexander II, Lavrov was arrested on charges of spreading "harmful ideas" and having connections with people "known to the government for their criminal direction", exiled to the Vologda province. In exile, Lavrov wrote one of his main works - "Historical Letters" (published in 1868-69 in the newspaper "Nedelya", a separate edition - 1870; 5th legal edition - 1917; repeatedly reprinted in free and illegal press). In them, Lavrov distinguished the sciences into phenomenological (sociology, psychology and ethics), investigating the laws of existence of recurring phenomena and processes, and morphological (history), investigating the distribution of objects and forms in space and time, in a given, single set of phenomena. He believed that random modifications play a greater role in history than repeating and unchanging facts, isolated phenomena mean more than "instances" common law, one of a kind - more than repetitive. Lavrov is considered the founder (along with N. K. Mikhailovsky) of the “subjective school” of the methodology of history. N. I. Kareev called him the first sociologist in Russia. The "Historical Letters" also give a "formula for progress". Its main driving force is a "critically thinking person" capable of mastering new views and possessing a moral core; such individuals become true workers of progress by uniting in a “party”, which gives their struggle “direction” and unity. The most important element of Lavrov's concept is the idea of ​​the intelligentsia paying its debt to the people, to whom it owes its "liberation from physical labor" in the name of mental improvement. Paying their debt to the people, the intelligentsia should enlighten and educate them, propagandizing the ideas of social equality and preparing the people for revolution in order to “reduce evil in the present and in the future” (Lavrov’s supporters are called “propaganda” in populism). This idea met with a lively response among the radical intelligentsia and had a significant impact on the formation of its worldview. According to contemporaries, the "Historical Letters" became "the gospel of the social revolutionary youth", ideologically prepared the "going to the people."

In 1870, with the help of G. A. Lopatin, Lavrov escaped from exile, emigrated to France, joined one of the sections of the 1st International, was a witness French Revolution 1870, as well as the Paris Commune of 1871 (summarized its experience in the book March 18, 1871, published in Geneva in 1880). He moved to Zurich, then to London (he became close to K. Marx and F. Engels), edited the non-periodical publication Vperyod! (1873-77) and a newspaper of the same name (1875-76). He published articles on "real worldview against theological worldview", on "equality against monopoly". He developed his doctrine of the party: he believed that the party cannot “cause” a revolution, its task is to “facilitate and accelerate the inevitable revolution” and minimize revolutionary violence; it must connect the intelligentsia with the people. Arguing with the supporters of M. A. Bakunin and P. N. Tkachev, Lavrov argued that “revolutionary violence is possible to a certain minimum,” which, without careful pre-training a conspiracy or a spontaneous popular "revolt" will, if successful, lead only to a redistribution of property, i.e., to the establishment of a bourgeois system. He condemned the "revolutionary itch" of the youth, because of which, as Lavrov believed, the future of Russia could be jeopardized. Unlike the anarchists, he justified the need to preserve the state for some time after the victory of the social revolution and the speedy transition from it to a free federation of self-governing communities. According to Lavrov, the peasantry is capable of accepting socialist ideas, since it has retained the real basis for the socialist reorganization of society - the peasant community and secular self-government.

Under pseudonyms, Lavrov continued to collaborate in the legal Russian press, published articles on the problems of the philosophy of art, literary-critical speeches, reviews, etc. ”, 1872, No. 2), “Essays on Systematic Knowledge” (ibid., 1873, No. 6), the book “Experience in the History of Thought” (vol. 1, issue 1, 1875), “Experience in the History of Thought of Modern Times” (vol. 1, part 1-2, 1888-94), “Essay on the evolution of human thought” (1898), “The tasks of understanding history. A project for an introduction to the study of the evolution of human thought” (1898; under the pseudonym S. S. Arnoldi); the book The Most Important Moments in the History of Thought (1903; published posthumously under the pseudonym A. Dolenga), was a preparatory material for the generalizing encyclopedic work on the history of thought conceived by Lavrov (not implemented).

At the turn of the 1870s and 1880s, Lavrov's political views evolved towards greater radicalism. In 1878, he established contact with the Polish revolutionary underground, was the initiator of group meetings of the Russian revolutionary emigration, which promoted "the practical actions of Russian socialists in Russia." If the program "Forward!" Lavrov gave priority to socio-economic transformations over political ones, believing that in conditions of economic inequality there can be no true political freedom for everyone, then by the beginning of the 1880s he came to the conclusion that it was necessary to carry out a political coup in Russia as a matter of priority by the forces of the revolutionary intelligentsia itself. capable of creating a people's party after the overthrow of the monarchy and abolishing the economic domination of the bourgeoisie. In the early 1880s, Lavrov became close to " People's Will". In 1881, he participated in the creation of the foreign department of the Red Cross Society of the People's Will. One of the editors of the Bulletin of the People's Will (1883-86). Sharing the socialist goals of Narodnaya Volya, Lavrov rejected the terrorist methods of its struggle, believing that socialists should act not against individuals, but against the system that gives rise to them.

Lavrov argued with Russian Marxists (G.V. Plekhanov and others): recognizing the proletariat as an important social force, Lavrov continued to adhere to the opinion that the peasantry plays the main role in the development of Russia.

In 1889, Lavrov represented Russia at the International Socialist Congress in Paris, which marked the beginning of the 2nd International. In 1892-96, he participated in the publication of the series "Materials for the History of the Russian Social Revolutionary Movement", in which he published his work "Narodnik Propagandists 1873-1878" (Issue 1-2 and 3-4, Geneva, 1895-96; in Russia with censored exceptions published in 1907, in full - in 1925) - one of the first essays on the history of the populist movement. Attempts to theoretically generalize the experience of the revolutionary movement in Russia in the 2nd half of the 19th century were made in the articles “A look at the past and present of Russian socialism” (“Narodnaya Volya Calendar”, 1883), “History, socialism and the Russian movement” (1893) and etc.

Lavrov's funeral at the Montparnasse cemetery was accompanied by a procession of many thousands. The socialists of many countries spoke at the grave.

Source: Materials for the biography of P. L. Lavrov. P., 1921. Issue. 1; Lavrov. Years of emigration: Archival materials: In 2 volumes / Selected, supplied with notes and an introductory essay by B. Sapir. Dordrecht; Boston, .

Op.: Sobr. op. Ser. 1, 3-6. P., 1917-1920. Issue. 1.2, 5-9; Fav. op. on socio-political topics. M., 1934-1935. T. 1-4; Philosophy and sociology. Fav. works: In 2 t. M., 1965.

Lit .: Bogatov VV Philosophy of Lavrov. M., 1972; Pomper Ph. R. Lavrov and the Russian revolutionary movement. Chi., ; Semenkova T. G. Economic views of P. L. Lavrov. M., 1980; Volodin A. I., Itenberg B. S. P. L. Lavrov. M., 1981; Antonov V.F. Revolutionary creativity of P.L. Lavrov. Saratov, 1984; Itenberg B. S. P. L. Lavrov in the Russian revolutionary movement. M., 1988; Vasiliev A. V. At the turn of the third millennium: to the 125th anniversary of the publication of "Historical Letters" by P. L. Lavrov. M.; Mariupol, 1995; Kazakov A.P. Theory of progress in Russian sociology late XIX in .: P. L. Lavrov, N. K. Mikhailovsky, M. M. Kovalevsky. SPb., 2006.

Comprehensive Goal:

know

• o the main works of the classics of Russian sociology;
• o the definition by the classics of sociology, its subject and methodology;
• o the content of the sociological concepts proposed by the classics;

be able to

• o substantiate the methodological approaches of the classics to the analysis of social phenomena and processes;
• o compare the sociological views of the classics;

own

o the skills of analyzing the sociological views of the classics of Russian sociology.

Subjective sociology of P. L. Lavrov and N. K. Mikhailovsky

Philosopher, publicist, ideologue of populism Petr Lavrovich Lavrov(1823-1900) was a representative of the subjective trend in sociology. N.I. Kareev in his article "Lavrov as a Sociologist" called him the first Russian sociologist, whose works should be familiar to everyone involved in sociology. As a true pioneer of scientific sociology in Russia, P.L. Lavrov and P.A. Sorokin in his article "Main Problems of P.L. Lavrov's Sociology".

The worldview of P.L. Lavrov was formed under the influence of the anthropological philosophy of L. Feuerbach, neo-Kantianism and positivism of O. Comte. In the founder of positivist sociology, he was attracted, first of all, by a negative attitude towards abstract, speculative constructions, a high appreciation of the methods of the natural sciences and the desire to bring the humanities closer to them. But the Russian sociologist was not satisfied with O. Comte's anti-individualistic position and his anti-psychologism. His understanding of sociological positivism P.L. Lavrov built from the position of psychologism, and especially emphasized that it was social (collective) psychology that should be the initial basis for the construction of sociology.

Significant influence on the worldview of P.L. Lavrov was provided by the work of the English historian and positivist sociologist G. Buckle, who was especially popular in Russia in the 1860s. K. Marx's "economic materialism" did not become a fundamental doctrine for the Russian sociologist, but entered his sociological concept as one of the factors explaining economic processes. The sociological views of P. L. Lavrov are presented in the works: "Historical Letters" (1869), "Progress Formula of Mr. Mikhailovsky" (1870), "Positive Sociologists" (1872), "On Method in Sociology" (1874), " Theory and Practice of Progress" (1881), "Social Revolution and the Tasks of Morality" (1885), "The Tasks of Understanding History. A Project of Introduction to the Study of the Evolution of Human Thought" (1898).

In the middle of the XIX century. among the young intelligentsia of Russia, on the one hand, the cult of natural science is affirmed, and on the other, an underestimation of the importance of the social sciences. In "Historical letters" P.L. Lavrov criticized those who saw natural sciences as "daily bread" and social sciences as "a pleasant dessert." Proving the importance of social science for a person, he emphasized that the social sciences are "closer to the vital interests" of people, more closely connected with their daily needs. Moreover, in his opinion, a natural scientist who neglects the social sciences reveals "the narrowness and underdevelopment of his thought." The natural sciences are "only as important and close" to man as they serve to a better understanding and the most convenient solution of the questions the social sciences are engaged in studying. Emphasizing the importance of the social sciences, P.L. Lavrov noted at the same time their shortcomings: inaccuracy of judgments, descriptiveness, probability and the possibility of different interpretations of the conclusions. He associated these shortcomings with the underdevelopment of social science and believed that intensive research on all aspects of social life, updating the methodology of its knowledge would allow the social sciences to become as positive as the natural ones in the future.

Having accepted the positivist orientation of the ideas of O. Comte, P.L. Lavrov argued that sociology is an independent science and occupies a central place among such basic social sciences as history, anthropology, psychology, and ethics. For him, as well as for O. Comte, sociology acted as "the completion of the system of sciences" about man and society. Sociology, in his opinion, relies on the laws of previous areas as ready-made data, but "finds its knowledge in a different way." In his posthumously published work "Most Important Moments in the History of Thought" (1903), sociology is defined by him as a science "studying and grouping the recurring facts of solidarity between the individuals of human society and striving to discover its laws."

Special attention to P.L. Lavrov paid attention to the question of the difference between sociology and history. From his point of view, sociology is a phenomenological science. It, like physics, biology, psychology, ethics, studies repetitive phenomena. History, on the other hand, is a morphological science, since, along with astronomy and geometry, it studies unique, inimitable phenomena. In sociology P.L. Lavrov saw abstract science, but concrete history. He considered the question of the transition of one of the non-recurring "phases of the evolution of thought and life to another phase" as the subject of historical science. The subject of sociology research is "the forms of manifestation, strengthening and weakening of solidarity between conscious organic individuals." The only thing that sociology and history have in common is their use of the subjective method.

The term "subjective method" P.L. Lavrov borrowed from O. Comte. However, from the point of view of the Russian sociologist, scientific knowledge requires unconditional objectivism and subjective arbitrariness in any of its forms: "subjectivism of personal affect", "logical subjectivism" and "subjectivism of ignorance" is unacceptable. He explained the need for a subjective method in sociology by the fact that, firstly, a researcher, studying social phenomena, is forced to give them a subjective assessment, since he is "a man himself, and cannot for a moment stand out from the processes characteristic of him." Secondly, when developing ideal models of community life for people and looking for means of their effective implementation, the researcher always judges "subjectively, according to his view of moral ideals, and he cannot judge otherwise."

According to P.L. Lavrov, using the subjective method, a sociologist can establish the importance (unimportance), normality (abnormality), desirability (undesirability) of any social phenomenon and process. The subjective method helps to approach the understanding of history and acts as the application of moral criteria to social phenomena and historical development in general. Recognizing the objective method as the main method of sociology as a phenomenological science, P.L. Lavrov assigned the role of an additional method to the subjective method in sociology.

One of the main themes of the sociological views of P.L. Lavrov - personality and society. In his understanding, a personality is a conscious organic individual that has the functions of cognition and activity. Entering into relations with other conscious individuals, individuals form various social communities and forms of social solidarity. The motives for establishing social ties between the personalities of P.L. Lavrov considered the innate human needs for material means of existence, security, and nervous excitement. Of all the needs of the individual, in his opinion, the main one for the individual is the need for nervous excitement. To meet other needs in society, the economic, political and spiritual spheres of life were formed. Despite the assertion that economic motives in all epochs "should certainly prevail over political ones," he was not a supporter of economic determinism. For him, the processes of the spiritual life of society were of decisive importance in the development of society.

Recognizing that the individual is the main participant in the process of civilization, and arguing that outside the individual there is no progress at all, P.L. Lavrov distinguished the following types of personalities:

• - figures of civilization - those few critically thinking people who realized the goals of the future society;
• - participants of civilization - those few who share the ideas of the leaders of civilization and act on their instructions;
• - opponents of civilization - those few who oppose social progress;
• - stepchildren of civilization - that exploited majority, which is deprived of the benefits of civilization;
• - savages of higher culture - that minority who only enjoy the benefits of civilization.

P.L. Lavrov shared the views of N.G. Chernyshevsky about reasonable egoism, but was against both individualism and collectivism. "A truly social theory," he wrote, "requires not the subordination of the social element to the personal and not the absorption of the individual by society, but the fusion of public and private interests." This is possible only when the individual develops in himself "an understanding of the public interest, which is the essence and its interests." He saw the way of merging the personal and the public through the development of social solidarity.

By solidarity in a broad sense, P. L. Lavrov understood “dependence between individuals”, which manifests itself in their uniform and similar behavior. According to him, solidarity existed long before the emergence of society as "zoological" in animals and "prehistoric" in humans in natural conditions. He called the social solidarity of modern people "consciously historical" and defined it as "a community of habits, interests, affects or beliefs" of acting individuals.

From the point of view of P.L. Lavrov, where there is no conscious solidarity, "there is no society, but only an accumulation of individuals." Society arises and functions only when social solidarity is established between people. It is conscious social solidarity, in his opinion, that should be the main subject of sociological research.

P. L. Lavrov distinguished three types of social solidarity:

• 1) unconscious, based on common habits;
• 2) affective, generated by a community of feelings;
• 3) conscious, resulting from the unity of beliefs.

Historically, he considered the "maternal clan" to be the first form of social solidarity. P.L. Lavrov described various forms of social solidarity, from the most ancient (clan, tribe) to modern (nation, state). In the development of social solidarity from a maternal clan based on common habits to a universal socialist state arising from the unity of convictions, he saw the historical path of social progress.

According to P.L. Lavrov, until "until sociology has established the meaning of progress," it as an integral and unified science does not exist, since the theory of social progress is "the final question of sociology." In his opinion, the theory of progress gives a moral assessment of the past events of history and indicates the moral goal "to which a critically thinking person must go if he wants to be a progressive figure."

Based on the Hegelian concept of the progressive development of society, P.L. Lavrov replaced in it the idea of ​​the dialectical movement of the spirit with the idea of ​​continuous improvement of the personality. Unlike the Western founders of sociology, who interpreted social progress as an objective, spontaneous, spontaneous and impersonal process, in his view, progress is the process of development of consciousness in humanity and the embodiment of truth and justice "through the work of the critical thought of the individual on his contemporary culture."

The defining moment of social progress, according to the Russian sociologist, is "a subjective view of events from the point of view of our moral ideal." A progressive society should be recognized as P.L. Lavrov, "in which the forms that determine solidarity" allow the growth and development of public consciousness, and consciousness, developing, strengthens the solidarity of society. He recognized the existence of regressive periods in the history of society, but believed that, in the final analysis, progress makes its way through "the approximation of historical facts to the real or ideal best."

Special attention to P.L. Lavrov paid attention to the issue of sources and driving forces, means and methods, periods, criteria and goals of social progress. He recognized three groups of factors as the main sources of social progress:

• - unconscious physical and mental instincts;
• - not always conscious habits, rituals, customs, traditions;
• - Conscious interests and inclinations.

The last group of factors was declared by him as the main source of the progressive development of society.

The leading driving force of social progress was proclaimed to be "critically thinking individuals", whose role in society is called upon to be played by the progressive intelligentsia. If every critically thinking person, P.L. Lavrov, will constantly actively strive for the best, then "no matter how insignificant the circle of his activity, no matter how small the sphere of his life, he will be an influential engine of progress." Among critical thinkers, he distinguished the following types:

• - "talkers" who only rant about progress, but do nothing to implement it;
• - "invisible heroes of mankind", who, despite the burden of everyday worries, support the embodiment of progress by their actions;
• - "leaders of progress" who devote themselves entirely to the promotion and implementation of progress.

According to the representative of Narodism, it is difficult for individual critically thinking individuals to achieve the progressive development of society alone. Therefore, he suggested that they unite in the Progress Party, which would give their activities "direction and unity."

The main way to achieve the goals of social progress P.L. Lavrov considered the social revolution, which he understood not only as a political upheaval, but also as a radical transformation of all aspects of society's life, and primarily spiritual. Social progress was conceived by him as a long process that goes through the following stages:

• - the emergence of critically thinking individuals who openly express their judgments about the unsuitability of existing social forms and the need to replace them;
• - inspiring people with examples and exploits of lone heroes;
• - union is critical thinking people to the Progress Party;
• - active action of the masses to transform society in accordance with the goals of progress.

As a universal criterion of social progress suitable for all times and peoples, P.L. Lavrov put forward " highest good of mankind". Concretizing this criterion, he included the following indicators:

• - personal development in physical, mental and moral terms;
• - embodiment in public forms of truth and justice;
• - expansion of social solidarity.

The sociologist attributed an increase in the number of critically thinking individuals and an improvement in the material well-being of people to indirect indicators of social progress.

From the point of view of P.L. Lavrov, the goals of social progress are the existing moral ideals. He proclaimed socialism to be the highest moral ideal. The ideal of socialism was presented to him as "universal cooperation for universal development", a society of "universal labor", "the kingdom of social justice".

P.L. Lavrov is one of the most significant figures in the history of Russian and world sociology. Before E. Durkheim, he established a functional connection between the development of thought, collective ideas and the public. He also designated, anticipating the ideas of G. Tarde and G. Le Bon, social manifestations of social consciousness.

Outstanding publicist, ideologue of populism Nikolai Konstantinovich Mikhailovsky(1842-1904) was a representative of the subjective trend in sociology. He had an outstanding literary talent and in the 1880s. was considered the most popular publicist and ruler of the thoughts of the revolutionary-minded Russian youth and intelligentsia.

The worldview of N.K. Mikhailovsky was formed under the influence of the positivist sociology of O. Comte, E. Durkheim, G. Spencer and the ideas of Russian revolutionary democrats. In the 1890s the ideologist of Russian populism sharply criticized the Russian Marxists and Social Democrats, which provoked a response from G. V. Plekhanov and V. I. Lenin.

The sociological views of N. K. Mikhailovsky are presented in the works "What is progress?" (1869), "The Analytical Method in Social Science" (1869), "Darwin's Theory and Social Science" (1870-1873), "The Struggle for Individuality" (1875-1876), "Notes of a layman" (1875-1877), " Heroes and the crowd" (1882), "Freemen and ascetics" (1877), "Letters about truth and falsehood" (1877), "Heroes and the crowd" (1882), "More about the heroes" (1891), "More about the crowd (1893).

For N.K. Mikhailovsky sociology - the most complex and most specific of the social sciences. Following the founders of positivism, he argued that the laws of sociology cannot be reduced "neither to the laws of biology, nor to the laws of any other lower science." As the central object of sociological research, he recognized the personality in the unity of its biological, mental and social existence. Hence, he saw the main task of sociology in studying the process of formation and development of the individual in her struggle with environmental conditions for her individuality.

The basis of the methodology of sociological knowledge, according to N.K. Mikhailovsky, the concept of two truths should become: "truth-truth", which is the result of objective observation, and "truth-justice", corresponding to the moral ideas of the sociologist. Speaking about the fact that in sociology the objective and subjective methods of cognition can "coexist quite peacefully side by side, even when applied to the same range of phenomena," he emphasized that the highest control should belong to the subjective method.

From the point of view of N.K. Mikhailovsky, the subjective method is applicable only in the social sciences. It is such a way of satisfying a cognitive need, "when the observer puts himself mentally in the position of the observed." The sociologist explained the need for a subjective method, firstly, by the fact that in order to achieve "truth-justice" a fusion of the subject and object of knowledge is required. This can happen if the subject of cognition "enters" the interests of the object under study, "survives his life, rethinks his thought, suffers his suffering, weeps over him with tears."

Secondly, the knowledge of social phenomena and processes includes their assessment from the standpoint of the ideal of justice. Therefore, a scientist cannot "evaluate social phenomena otherwise than subjectively." The capacity for empathy, or sympathetic experience, is inherent in all of humanity, but to varying degrees. From the point of view of N.K. Mikhailovsky, one person can survive the life of each person, the other - the life of his compatriots or his fellows in the profession. And since only people with a high moral level and extensive experience can engage in sociology, it is they who are capable of developing ideals and goals, of understanding social man as a being "with certain feelings, known aspirations and, finally, a known preconceived opinion."

Following the subjective method, noted N.K. Mikhailovsky, requires the scientist to formulate a certain ideal-criterion at the beginning of his research. In the process of research, he must evaluate social phenomena and processes based on an ideal-criterion that reflects the interests not of any individual or social group, but of the entire working people.

As a universal sociological law, N.K. Mikhailovsky proposed the law of struggle for individuality. He designated two types of individuality: "human individuality" - a person and "public individuality" - a social group or social institution. N.K. Mikhailovsky was one of the first in sociology to consider human individuality as a unity of three aspects: biogenic, psychogenic, sociogenic. Public individuals were arranged by him in two rows: vertical - family, clan, tribe, nation, class, state and horizontal - elements internal structure individuality of the vertical row. From the point of view of N.K. Mikhailovsky, social individuals are in constant struggle with human individuality and among themselves. The purpose of this struggle is to subjugate another individuality, unify it and turn it into a "cog", an organ of a more complex social organization.

The main attention of N.K. Mikhailovsky focused on the problem of the struggle of the individual for his individuality. In his opinion, the law of the struggle for existence established by Charles Darwin is a particular manifestation of the law of the struggle of human individuality. However, a person in the struggle for his individuality not only fights for his existence, but also strives for solidarity, cooperation, mutual assistance.

The leading way of the struggle of the individual for his individuality N.K. Mikhailovsky recognized not violence against others, but self-improvement. If Charles Darwin proclaimed the need to adapt the individual to the environment, then the Russian thinker understood the struggle for human individuality as the need to adapt the environment to the individual. Those who, fighting for their freedom and for normal conditions lives, adapt to their environment, he called "ideal" personalities. Those who passively adapt to the social environment - "practical" personalities.

N.K. Mikhailovsky stated that among the Russian people the germ of an ideal personality should be sought, on the one hand, in the peasant as a representative of a multifunctional worker of physical labor with a high level of organization, but with a low degree of spiritual development, and on the other hand, in an intellectual as a representative of a mental worker with a high degree spiritual development, but low level organizations. If you combine them, the ideologist of Russian populism dreamed, then you get a model of the ideal type of personality.

Long before the teachings of E. Durkheim on the division of labor as a factor in the evolution of society, N.K. Mikhailovsky proposed his own approach to the consideration of this process. He identified three types of division of labor:

• 1) organic (physiological) - "between organs within one indivisible person";
• 2) public (social) - "between whole indivisible" people as representatives of certain social communities;
• 3) production (technological) - between the elements of "some kind of production into separate small operations."

According to N.K. Mikhailovsky, the division of labor is the basis of social differentiation. The organic division of labor, which historically covers the period of primitive society and the initial era of barbarism, assumes that each individual performs different types of work, and all his abilities develop harmoniously. The Russian sociologist designated the form of social connections of individuals in the conditions of the organic division of labor as a simple cooperation of equals. Under these conditions, all members of society have similar interests and the same social functions, solidarity and mutual assistance are developed, public and individual consciousness are merged, and the individual himself is free and active.

The social division of labor begins in the era of barbarism and continues to this day. It assumes that each individual is the bearer of any one labor role, and his abilities develop unevenly and excessively in one direction, reaching "professional idiocy." Complex cooperation of unequals acts as a form of social ties between individuals in the conditions of the social division of labor. With complex cooperation, each member of society has its own individual interests and various social functions, social differentiation and corporativity are developed, collective and individual consciousness is split according to the principle of "us" - "them", there is social enmity, and the personality itself is passive and enslaved by other individuals.

The future development of society N.K. Mikhailovsky associated with the production division of labor and with the revival of simple cooperation of equals at a higher level. Transition to new form social connections he called " great revolution", which will lead to the establishment of a socialist system. In Russia, from his point of view, the socialist system will make it possible to avoid the harmful influence of complex cooperation if, bypassing capitalism, through the rural community, reform reforms are carried out.

Depending on the type of division of labor and the form of social ties, N.K. Mikhailovsky singled out the main stages, levels of organization and degree of development of society in the process of its evolution. Visualize the proposed N.K. Mikhailovsky scheme of the evolution of society allows table. 7.1.

Table 7.1

Stages, levels of organization and degree of development of society

The concept of social progress was developed by N.K. Mikhailovsky in line with the controversy with the organic theory of evolution of H. Spencer. Unlike the English sociologist, who pointed out the similarity of progress in the organic and social worlds, the Russian sociologist contrasted social progress with organic. He also singled out and noted the discrepancy between the progress of the individual and the progress of society. Personal progress, according to N.K. Mikhailovsky, is associated with her struggle for her individuality through adaptation to her environment. The progress of society - with the struggle of the individual for existence by adapting himself to the environment. In the proposed N.K. Mikhailovsky "formula" the progress of society was defined as "a gradual approach to the integrity of the indivisible, to the most complete and comprehensive division of labor between organs and the smallest possible division of labor between people." Everything that delays this movement is immoral and unjust, the sociologist proclaimed.

The goal of the progress of society was seen by N.K. Mikhailovsky is to restore a versatile person. The ideal of progress is a harmoniously developed personality. Achieving the ideal is possible when the individual sets himself and society the goal and ideal of progress and "drives events towards them."

Just like P.L. Lavrov, N.K. Mikhailovsky assigned the main role in the history of society to outstanding personalities as leaders of the masses. The motive for considering the problem of interaction between prominent personalities and the masses of the people for him was the fact that the calls of the populists to "go to the people" and agitate them to speak out against the existing political regime didn't get the right result. The revolutionaries were unable to establish contacts with the peasant masses. The people remained deaf to their agitation and to the heroic actions of the lone People's Volunteers. The failures that befell the populists awakened an interest in studying the ways and means of influencing the individual on the people. In connection with the consideration of the problem of interaction between the individual and the masses, N.K. Mikhailovsky proposed the concept of "heroes and the crowd". The basis of this concept was the theory of imitation, which he presented eight years before the appearance of the work of G. Tarde "Laws of imitation".

In his approach to studying the relationship between the hero and the crowd, N.K. Mikhailovsky distinguished between the concepts of "hero" and "outstanding personality", "people" and "crowd". The hero was understood by him as one who can captivate a lot of people with his example for a good or bad, reasonable or senseless deed. Unlike a hero, an outstanding person should be considered, taking into account the values ​​\u200b\u200bthat she contributes to the world treasury of mankind. An outstanding personality performs in crucial moment history, most fully expressing the needs of the transformation of social life.

The Russian sociologist defined the people as "the totality of the working classes of society." The crowd, in his understanding, is such a collection of people, which is characterized by anonymity and increased suggestibility. Using many examples, he showed that people in a crowd are united by an emotional bond, and their actions are not limited by moral and legal norms. The crowd largely absorbs the individual traits and characteristics of a person. Individuals in the crowd are easily carried away by some promise, appeal, slogan for any good or bad actions. A feature of the crowd is also that it is constantly in "chronic expectation of a hero", and anyone, even an insignificant person, who "under the influence of a combination of any circumstances will rise in the eyes of the crowd" can lead her story.

The influence of the hero on the crowd, which occurs according to the laws of suggestion, N.K. Mikhailovsky called "social hypnosis", and the state of mass psychosis of the crowd, which is based on the laws of imitation - "mass contagion". As reasons for imitation, he singled out psychological and social factors, dividing the latter into general and special. Special factors are determined by a specific social situation, while general factors are determined by the state of the economy, politics, culture and morality in a given society. The factor that enhances imitation, in his opinion, is the narrowness social experience, which leads to a decrease in the "activity of consciousness and will." N.K. Mikhailovsky argued that the more empty the consciousness of individuals in the crowd and the weaker their will, the more extraordinary the hero, the stronger his influence on the crowd.

In order to avoid the uncritical behavior of the masses involved in the political struggle, which is relevant for Russia, and to protect them from the influence of unworthy leaders, the ideologue of populism proposed to educate critically thinking individuals, and to nominate representatives of the progressive intelligentsia to the role of heroes.

To the normal movements of the masses N.K. Mikhailovsky attributed "freedom" and "asceticism". In his view, freemen is a spontaneous protest of the people, an active desire to remake the environment, destroying the obstacles that lie between the needs of the individual and their satisfaction. Asceticism, on the other hand, is a passive protest of the people by drowning out their needs, remaking themselves, and mortifying carnal desires. Unlike the actions of the crowd, freemen and asceticism are based not on mental, but on rational motives for people's behavior and a critical attitude towards the leader-hero.

The relationship between the hero and the crowd N.K. Mikhailovsky considered pathology caused by the dominance of the division of labor in society. The struggle for individuality must, in his opinion, overcome this social vice. The harmonious development of the personality will turn it into an integral "I", free from one-sidedness, and with the elimination of the division of labor, pathological relations between the hero and the crowd will disappear.