What is the place of Russia in the world society? What type of civilizations can it be attributed to? On the question of the type of civilization in Russia What type of civilization does Russian society belong to?

What type of civilization does Russia belong to? This question has long agitated the thoughts of Russians. In the history of political and legal thought in Russia, there have been and exist different points of view. Some unconditionally attribute Russia to the Western type of civilization, the second to the Eastern, and still others speak of a special historical development inherent in Russia.

It should be noted that both history and the current position of Russia indicate the peculiarities of its civilizational path. They are largely related to the geographic location of the country. The Russian lands, being a watershed between Europe and Asia, often suffered from the steppe hordes, lagging behind the countries of Europe in socio-economic terms. Under the influence of external danger, the need to overthrow the Horde yoke, the process of overcoming feudal fragmentation in Russia proceeded at an accelerated pace. The special nature of forced centralization, based not on solid preconditions, but on barely outlined tendencies of integration, led to the strengthening of despotism, the elimination of vassal-retinue and the formation of princely-subject relations, which can be designated by the short formula "sovereign - slave".

The assertion of despotism led to the strengthening of the serfdom and hindered the development of the country.

Peter's reforms had the goal of making up for lost time, catching up with the advanced countries of Europe, which had gone far ahead. The method of a forced breakthrough at that time was possible by strengthening state power and increasing the exploitation of the peasants, which was done by Peter. His reforms gave a powerful impetus to the progressive development of Russia, at the same time creating the prerequisites for its subsequent inhibition: absolute autocracy, a powerful bureaucratic apparatus, serfdom.

In the second half of the XIX - early XX century. Russia has an opportunity to catch up with the advanced countries of the world and enter a civilized society in an evolutionary, reformatory way. This took time and the wisdom of state power. In Russia, neither the first nor the second was enough to peacefully transform society.

At the beginning of the XX century. social contradictions intensified in the country, exacerbated by the First World War, which led to a crisis of the existing system. Under these conditions, the radicalism of political forces, which had already deep roots in Russian history, sharply increased, which is explained by many factors: the reluctance of the autocracy to make concessions to the opposition, the absence of developed democratic traditions in Russia and, due to this, the extreme intolerance of political parties towards each other.

An important feature of Russia was the spread of the idea of ​​"a just society." The developed leveling tendencies exerted powerful pressure on all socialist parties, including the Bolsheviks. The utopian ideal fostered enthusiasm, as utopia promises more than is possible, for example, to make everyone happy in a short time. The aspiration for the utopian ideal inevitably led to the thesis of the possibility of pushing the historical process. And this requires strong power, violence, dictatorship.

The doctrine of Marxism, which the Bolsheviks tried to implement in practice, adjusted to reflect Russian reality, was close to many strata of the population, which predetermined the revolutionary transition to a new political system in Russia.

The historical course of Russia, its civilizational features prepared a powerful social explosion, which was establishing the power in the country, which sought to solve the objectively standing tasks of modernizing society along the lines of building socialism.

From the standpoint of Marxism, the civilizational characteristics of this or that country do not matter. Such a concept does not exist in Marxism at all. But since Marxism is the ideological current of Western culture, Lenin, the Bolsheviks actually proposed to consider Russia by analogy with societies belonging to Western civilizations.

Therefore, when creating a socialist model of building society in Russia, Marxist ideas were corrected in accordance with the views of the Bolsheviks and real practice. In October 1917, the Bolsheviks, having come to power, were armed with the Marxist model of socialism in its radical left.

The main characteristics of this model:

1. Under socialism, all means of production become public property. Public property is owned and managed by the state. (As long as the state exists.)

2. There are no commodity-money relations under socialism and communism. The regulator of the economy is not a market, but a plan. Planning is carried out taking into account the use value, i.e. taking into account the satisfaction of the personal needs of people in the right things.

3. Distribution under socialism is made through receipts, tokens, which producers receive for "individual working hours."

4. Under communism, the productive forces of society are so strongly developed, and the nature of man is so changed that everyone receives according to his needs, and labor becomes the first vital necessity.

5. A democratic republic is a form of bourgeois rule. Democracy is a historically transitory phenomenon. It is being replaced by "democracy for the majority", which implies "exemptions from freedom" in the interests of the majority.

6. To gain political power, suppress the resistance of the dissatisfied and organize society in a new way, it is necessary to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is democracy for the majority.

From the standpoint of modern knowledge about the development of society and historical practice, the main shortcomings of these theoretical concepts are as follows:

1. The monopoly of state ownership of the means of production leads to extremely negative consequences: the exploitation of man by man is replaced by the exploitation of man by the state; people are alienated from property, property is depersonalized. And this, in turn, leads to the loss of the "sense of the owner" with all the negative consequences. The elimination of private property creates a state monopoly on the productive forces of society. Because of this, the importance of the state increases sharply, because it takes over the management of all aspects of the life of society, including the entire economy.

2. Centralized planning and distribution regulation, the absence of such a regulator as a market, contribute to the emergence of a deficit, a decrease in the quality of manufactured products, and strengthen the bureaucratic apparatus.

3. Lack of economic incentives to work makes a person inert, lack of initiative.

4. "Exemptions from freedom", the elimination of democratic institutions, the use of violence contribute to the establishment of the dictatorship of the party and, ultimately, to the regime of personal power.

There is a direct logical connection between the economic and political transformations that ultimately lead to the establishment of a dictatorial regime. The elimination of private property, commodity-money relations occurs through violence, the establishment of a dictatorship. The absence of various forms of ownership creates the preconditions for the strengthening of monopoly in the political sphere, which leads to the strengthening of the state apparatus, including the punitive bodies.

Thus, the implementation of the ideas of Marxism in its left-radical version contributes to the formation of a state with the characteristic features of countries of eastern despotism.

The most radical ideas of Marxism were implemented in Russia. As we have already noted, this did not happen by accident. The historical course of Russia prepared a powerful social explosion, which was establishing the power in the country, which sought to solve the objectively standing tasks of modernizing society along the lines of building socialism.

The inability and unwillingness of the ruling elite to go for reforms intensified the contradictions in the country, which led to a social explosion and a revolutionary change in the political system.

The implementation of Marxist ideas about the transformation of the means of production into state property and the creation of a market-free socialism, in which the entire economy of the country will be turned into a kind of "single factory", has led to the state's monopoly in economic life. Under these conditions, the people did not receive economic freedom, their situation was aggravated by the imposition of a system of non-economic coercion.

The replacement of free competition with a monopoly in the economy contributed to the establishment of political monopoly, based on the Marxist provision on the dictatorship of the proletariat.

As a result, in the first years of Soviet power, the implementation by Lenin and his supporters of the ideas of marketless socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat led in the sphere of politics to the dictatorship of the party, in the sphere of economics - to the establishment of a bureaucratic, ineffective organization of labor.

Under the influence of objective circumstances, after the end of the Civil War, the Bolsheviks made adjustments to economic policy: they recognized the pluralism of property and commodity-money relations, allowed the use of hired force under the control of the state, etc.

Most of the leaders of the communist party viewed the new economic policy as a temporary retreat, believing that it would be replaced by another one in which the Marxist model of socialism would be fully implemented.

Changes in the economic sphere did not lead to the liberalization of the political regime. In the first half of the 1920s. the dictatorship of the party was still strengthened, and in the second half of the 1920s. there is an evolution of the political regime, which led to the establishment of the dictatorship of the leader.

The political process of establishing the cult of the leader is accompanied by a breakdown of the new economic policy, because in order to establish absolute totalitarian power, it is necessary to monopolize not only political, but also economic power.

Changes in the economic sphere are also due to the fact that many leaders of the Soviet state dreamed of returning to the Marxist provisions on the transformation of the means of production into state property and on the elimination of commodity-money relations. The hopes for the rapid development of all sectors of the country's national economy in order to gain economic independence from the capitalist states were also connected with the changes in economic policy.

Both forced industrialization and complete collectivization, carried out during the pre-war five-year plans, were aimed at solving the entire complex of these tasks.

Characterizing the overall socio-economic results of industrialization, it can be noted that the rate of economic development of the country during the first five-year plans, despite the "leaps" leading to disruptions, were high. By all historical standards, if we take only the quantitative aspect of economic development, the results were brilliant. In the 1930s. The USSR in terms of gross industrial output came second in the world and first in Europe, thereby joining the ranks of the first world powers and acquiring economic independence.

Great changes have taken place in the social sphere. The size of the working class has increased, its educational and professional level has increased.

The situation in agriculture was much worse. Collectivization, which led to innumerable calamities for the peasantry, did not lead to the creation of an effective agrarian stratum. During its implementation, the peasants were alienated from the land, from the means of production. The peasant turned from a master into a performer of works, into a “day laborer”. The return to the surplus appropriation system destroyed the material incentives for the work of the peasants.

Large-scale collective farming opened up opportunities for the rapid development of agriculture, but on the condition that the labor owner is the owner of the means of production and the products produced. It was this condition that was not met, which predetermined the formation of the agrarian stratum, which cannot provide the country's population with food.

So, in the years of the pre-war five-year plans, great changes took place. Industrialization and collectivization have changed the face of the country. These changes were taken into account when drawing up a new constitution of the state, approved on December 5, 1936 by the VHI Extraordinary Congress of Soviets of the USSR.

Indeed, if we analyze the views of Marx, Engels, Lenin (before 1917) on socialism, we can see that to a large extent in the second half of the 1930s. they have been implemented.

One of the main requirements of Marxism was, first of all, the transformation of the means of production into state property. The next important postulate of Marxism is the nullification of commodity-money relations. The implementation of these requirements, according to Marx, will lead to the elimination of the exploitation of man by man.

Let's see how these fundamental Marxist attitudes were implemented in our country in the second half of the 1930s.

State and cooperative-collective farm (in fact, the same as state) ownership of production assets, tools of production and industrial buildings by the end of the second five-year plan amounted to 98.7% of all production assets in our country. The socialist (essentially state) system of production began to dominate the entire national economy of the USSR; in terms of gross industrial output, it was 99.8%, in gross agricultural production, including the personal subsidiary plots of collective farmers, 98.6%, in terms of trade, 100%.

Another fundamental position of Marxism was also realized: commodity-money relations were curtailed. The markets were closed by administrative means, the state distribution of material resources was introduced, the sale by enterprises of their materials and equipment was prohibited, etc.

However, the differences in the material position of members of society were not eliminated. A new exploiting class emerged - the nomenclature, which used the analysis given by Marx in Capital to extract surplus value.

The "Marxist steps" in the economic sphere of Stalin and his associates not only failed to realize the dream of Marxists (and not only Marxists) to eliminate exploitation, but, on the contrary, made exploitation more severe and sophisticated.

The same can be said about the "Marxist steps" of the leadership of the ruling party of the CPSU (b) in the political and ideological spheres. The classless communist society, which, according to Marx, should have been created after a short transitional period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, has not been built. The state does not die away, but strengthens, permeating all spheres of society. The totalitarian Stalinist system was in charge of all areas of the political, economic, spiritual, ideological life of Soviet society. The apparatus of the communist party ("party within the party") had absolute power in all areas. Legislative, judicial control, administrative functions were merged and concentrated in the central party apparatus. The governing and distribution bodies were dualistic. The administrative functions were performed by the party apparatus, the executive functions by the state apparatus.

So, by the end of the 1930s. in the USSR, the Stalinist vision of socialism was realized with the domination of the nomenklatura, massive repression and human fear, without the elementary signs of democracy.

The characteristic features of this kind of socialism are:

Centralization of all spheres of public life;

The elimination of the masses from management, the fictitious nature of the institutions of democracy;

Merging of the party and state apparatus, the dictate of the party-state bureaucracy;

The exit of punitive bodies from the control of society;

Cult of personality;

Creation of ideological myths, a huge gap between word and deed.

The economic basis of the created system was: monopoly of state property, lack of pluralism in the economic sphere; limited nature of the action of commodity-money relations; exploitation of the working people by the totalitarian state, by the new exploiting class - by the nomenclature; an extensive and costly economic mechanism based on non-economic coercion.

In fact, all of the listed features of socialism in the Stalinist modification were signs of the countries of Eastern civilization. Thus, our country during this period, both in content and in form, resembled a country of eastern despotism, where there is no private property, where the state permeates all spheres of life, where tyranny reigns.

So, the bright dreams of Marx and his followers about a wonderful future in the USSR turned into a dark and tragic reality. And, I think, this can be explained, firstly, by the fact that the ideals of Marxists (and not only Marxists: Mora, Saint-Simon, Fourier, Herzen, Chernyshevsky, Bakunin, Kropotkin) were largely utopian, and secondly, they were embodied in an Asian-European country like Russia. Note that in some countries, Marxist ideas, transformed into the programs of social democratic parties, contributed to the creation of a democratic society with a highly efficient economy.

In its formation and development, the considered socialist system in the Soviet state went through several stages. By the late 1930s - early 1940s. the system was completed. In the future, she took various denunciations that did not change her essence. It was shaken and overturned only by the events of the second half of the 1980s - early 1990s.

Already in the early 1960s. The Soviet state is facing certain difficulties. The overall economic situation began to deteriorate. The pace of economic development has slowed down. In the early 1970s. The USSR lagged behind in the field of economic development not only from Western countries, but also from a number of developing countries. The state preferred to build new enterprises rather than oversaturate old ones. The result of this policy was the actual cessation of economic growth. By the mid-1980s. the inability of the country's leadership to ensure stability, not to mention economic progress, has become increasingly evident. A deep crisis was brewing in the state, which covered all spheres: economic, political, social, spiritual, etc. The crisis led to fundamental socio-economic changes, which some political scientists call a peaceful capitalist revolution. And in fact, in our country, fundamentally new economic relations based on the principles of liberal a desire, perhaps not yet fully realized, not to stay away from the main trends in the movement of world civilization.

The revolutionary transformations, the reforms carried out in our country, again actualized the question of the ways of development of Russia, of its attitude to one or another type of civilization.

In the early 90s. XX century there was a strong influence of politicians who believed that Russia was an integral part of Western civilization, from which the Bolsheviks violently brought it out. Ideologues of this kind (to a greater extent they were radical democrats) believed that upon returning to the fold of Western democracy, the United States and the countries of Western Europe would provide us with great assistance in order to quickly get rid of our inertia and Asiaticism and become a powerful state.

In the modern political science community, there is also the point of view that, despite the changes, Russia remains a country of the eastern type.

The influence of ideologists, who do not classify Russia as one of the known types of civilizations, also remains quite strong in modern Russia. One of the founders of this approach can be considered P.Ya. Chaadaev, who back in 1836 in his first philosophical letter wrote: “One of the saddest features of our peculiar civilization is that we are still discovering truths that have become hackneyed in other countries ... The fact is that we have never walked along with other peoples, we do not belong to any of the known families of the human race, nor to the West, nor to the East, and we do not have the traditions of either one or the other. "

The varieties of this approach include the Eurasian concept, the founders of which are the emigrants of N.S. Trubetskoy, G.V. Florovsky, P.N. Savitsky, L.P. Karsavin and others. In the early 20s. XX century abroad, being in emigration, they offered their own interpretation of the historical process, in which a negative attitude towards the West was clearly manifested. Therefore, they separate Russia not only from Europe, but also from the Slavic world. In this case, they opposed the Slavophils, believing that the latter dissolve the Russian people in Slavism, and the Russian national consciousness - in Pan-Slavism, which is based on the idea of ​​the peculiarity and unity of Slavism.

The Eurasians believed that the determining factor in the development of peoples was their connection with the geographic environment, which determines the identity of peoples. The vast expanses of Russia, covering Europe and Asia, contributed to the creation of a special mentality of the Russian people, the originality of its cultural world.

Another feature of the Russian people, according to the Eurasians, is the influence of the Eastern ("Turanian", Turkic-Tatar) factor on it. The influence of this factor was much greater than the influence of Western civilization.

As a result of these features, a unique civilization has developed in Russia, which differs from both Western and Eastern civilizations. Russia is a special world - Eurasia. The peoples inhabiting it represent a single multinational nation with the leading role of the Russian nationality. Russia, according to the Eurasians, is self-sufficient. Russia has everything necessary for its development.

It should be noted that critics of the Eurasianists accused them of having links with Bolshevism, in an attempt to justify the political regime in the Soviet state. There were grounds for such an accusation. The Soviet special services introduced their agents into the ranks of the Eurasians, who began to "help" financially the supporters of the new theoretical direction to publish the newspaper "Eurasia". After this became known to a wide circle of emigrants, Eurasianism was discredited and, as a theoretical trend, ceased to exist. However, supporters of this approach still exist.

After a brief analysis of the main theories about the place of Russia in the world community of civilizations, let us return to the question that was posed at the beginning of this paragraph: what type of civilizations does Russia belong to?

The analysis of the historical path of our state allows us to answer it. In its pure form, Russia does not belong to any type of civilization. This is manifested in the following:

1. Russia is a conglomerate of peoples who belong to different types of civilizations.

2. Russia is located between East and West (one might say - both in the East and in the West).

3. In the process of the formation and development of the Russian State, it was influenced by various civilizational centers: Byzantine civilization and the "steppe" (primarily the Mongol invasion), Europe and Asia.

4. At sharp turns of history, the whirlwinds pushed the country closer to the West, then - to the East.

5. More than 70 years of building socialism had a huge impact on the development of Russia.

As we have already noted, this construction was carried out under the influence of Marxist ideas, adjusted by the leadership of the Bolsheviks in accordance with their views and real practice, which led to many negative consequences.

However, it should be noted that not only negative consequences are associated with Marxism. We must not forget that the teaching

Marx and Engels gave a powerful impetus to the workers' and socialist movement in the capitalist countries. The struggle of the working class, which was often carried out under socialist ideas, contributed to the evolutionary change of the capitalist world and, ultimately, to its transformation into a modern civilized society. Evolution also took place under the influence of the revolution in Russia, which was led by Lenin and the Bolsheviks.

When constructing the contours of the future society, K. Marx and F. Engels often turned from sober realists into utopians, whose revolutionary romanticism, realized in practice, was transformed into its opposite. But, pondering the general perspective of the development of society, K. Marx and F. Engels guessed some features of society that will make it more humane (social protection of members of society, the creation of public funds for this, etc.) and dynamic (planning).

It seems that some of the humane ideas of socialism will be embodied in the new democratic Russia, as happened in most of the civilized states of the modern world.

The best features of both Western and Eastern civilizations must be embodied in the new Russia. Our society should combine world values ​​with traditional ones inherent in Russia. After all, Russia is a unique state entity located both in Europe and in Asia, the development of which has been and is being influenced by various civilizational streams. And in this sense, we can say that Russia is both Europe and Asia.

Much should be done to embody the best features of Western and Eastern civilizations, to transform the country into a truly democratic state with the inherent traditional values ​​of the peoples of Russia. First of all, it is necessary to eliminate the preconditions of totalitarianism. In Russia, due to the peculiarities of its historical development, socio-economic, political and spiritual prerequisites persist, which do not exclude the possibility of the revival of totalitarianism. To create guarantees in the state system of our society that would prevent the repetition of negative events, it is necessary to reform the social system, create a legal state, and instill in people respect for law.

What type of civilizations does Russia belong to and why ?. and got the best answer

Answer from Association PAKMASH [guru]
Russia is a special type of civilization that differs from both the West and the East. They called this special type of civilization Eurasian.
In the Eurasian concept of the civilizational process, a special place was given to the geographical factor (natural environment) - the "place of development" of the people. This environment, in their opinion, determines the characteristics of various countries and peoples, their identity and destiny. Russia occupies the middle space of Asia and Europe, roughly outlined by three great plains: East European, West Siberian and Turkestan. These huge flat areas, devoid of natural sharp geographical boundaries, left an imprint on the history of Russia, contributed to the creation of a kind of cultural world.

Answer from Jeka[guru]
To the type of Mayan civilization. Why not! Also smart and also ingloriously extinct!

Answer from Alexey Titov[guru]
out of types

Answer from Arn[guru]
If nothing has changed in 10 years, then there was an opinion that to their own, for a wild cross between Western and Eastern.

Answer from 3 answers[guru]

Hey! Here is a selection of topics with answers to your question: What type of civilizations does Russia belong to and why ?.

STAVROPOL 2007

BBK 63.3 (2) Ya73

Russia in world civilization (IX-XIX centuries) Study guide for independent work of students. –Stavropol. Publishing house: SGMA, 2007. ISBN

Compiled by: L.I. Tsapko

A textbook for independent work of students examines the main milestones in Russian history from the 9th to the 19th centuries. The history of Russia is viewed in the context of world civilization. The teaching material is presented in chapters in chronological order. The use of elements of a visual and graphic nature allows you to better understand and assimilate the material, to get closer to comprehending a complex and contradictory historical process.

The textbook is intended for students of medical and pharmaceutical universities.

Reviewers:

Bulygina T.A., Doctor of History, Professor, Head department history of Russia SSU

Kalinchenko S.B., Candidate of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of History of SSAU

© Stavropol State

Medical Academy, 2007

Foreword

In the manual, an attempt is made in accordance with the requirements of the current Gosstandart of the Russian Federation for higher educational institutions from new positions and in a holistic manner to analyze national history, to show history as a process, to reveal the logic of the development of Russian history. Some of the main points and tendencies of Russian history are given against the background of foreign ones, since just as a person cannot know himself outside of communicating with other people, so the history of one country, even as specific as Russia, cannot be understood and comprehended without comparing its fundamental points with the history of others. countries. Russian history simply does not exist outside of European and world history. And not only in a chronological or geographical sense. Russian specificity and even "uniqueness" is a kind of manifestation of global processes. Understanding Russian history is a prerequisite for realizing what is happening in the world. The textbook is aimed at helping the student to form concrete ideas about the most important events that determined the course of world history, and about the socio-historical structures that underlie it. When writing the manual, two approaches were used - problematic and chronological, which allow analyzing the most important aspects of the life of the state and society for a long time. The limited volume of the textbook and its focus on a contingent already familiar from school education with some historical facts made it necessary to abandon the detailed presentation of all the facts in order to focus on the crucial moments of Russian history. Comprehension of history is a creative and diverse process, therefore it is impossible without thoughtful and intense independent work. Visual diagrams, diagrams, tables presented in the manual should help students.

Topic 1. Methodological problems and basic concepts of historical science. The place and role of Russia in history.

Plan

1. Subject, methods and sources for studying the history of the Fatherland.

2. Russian historical science. Features of Russian history.

3. Conditions for the formation of the Russian statehood: factors that determined the features of Russian civilization.

History is the collective memory of the people. Loss of historical memory destroys public consciousness, makes life meaningless. As the great Pushkin wrote, "respect for the past is the trait that distinguishes education from savagery."

The term is a history of Ionian origin. Ionia became the birthplace of early Greek prose, on which he wrote his essay Herodotus- "father of history" V century. BC. However, a clear distinction between science and art was not yet drawn at that time. This is clearly reflected in the mythology of the ancient Greeks: the goddess Athena patronized both the arts and sciences, and the muse Cleo was considered the patroness of history. The works of ancient authors included information on both history and literature, geography, astronomy, theology.

Historical science tries to give a holistic vision of the historical process in the unity of all its characteristics... In this it does not differ from other sciences. As in other sciences, in history there is an accumulation and discovery of new facts, theory is being improved taking into account the development of other branches of knowledge (culturology, historical
psychology, sociology, etc.), methods of processing and analysis of sources (for example, the use of mathematical methods). Most often in historical science, two groups of methods are used: general scientific and special-historical.

General scientific methods- these are methods of empirical research (observation, measurement, experiment); methods of theoretical research (idealization, formalization, modeling, induction, deduction, thought experiment, systems approach, historical, logical, etc.) General scientific methods as such are necessary at the theoretical level of historical science. When applied to specific historical situations, they are used to develop special historical methods for which they serve as a logical basis.

Special-historical methods represent a different combination of general scientific methods, adapted to the characteristics of the studied historical objects. These include: historical and genetic; historical and comparative; historical and typological; historical and systemic; method

diachronic analysis.

History is a science that studies the past in the totality of specific facts, seeking to identify the causes and consequences of the events that took place, to understand and evaluate the course of the historical process ... You cannot create a new world bypassing the past - people knew this.
at all times.
All this
testifies in favor of the fact that knowledge of history makes it clearer
understand modernity.
The task of history is to generalize and process the accumulated human experience. The subject of history is the study of human society as a contradictory and unified process.

It has long been noticed that stones speak if they are stones of history. -
The evidence of conclusions is an obligatory feature of scientific knowledge. Isto
Riya operates with precisely established facts. As in others
sciences, in history there is an accumulation and discovery of new facts.

These facts are drawn from historical sources. Historical sources- these are all remnants of a past life, all evidence of pro
shlom. Currently, there are four main groups
historical sources: 1) real;

2) written; 3) and
visual; 4) phonic.

Historians investigate all facts without exception. The collected factual material requires its own explanation, clarification of the reasons for the development of society. This is how theoretical concepts are developed. Thus, on the one hand, knowledge is needed -
specific facts, on the other hand, the historian must comprehend the whole
collection of facts in order to identify the causes and patterns
development of society.

At different times, historians have differently explained the reasons and patterns of development of the history of our country. Chroniclers since the times
Nestor believed that the world develops according to divine providence and divine will. With the advent of experienced, rationalistic knowledge
historians as the determining force of the historical process -
began to look for objective factors. Thus, M.V. Lomonosov (1711 - 1765) and V.N. Tatishchev (1686 - 1750), who stood at the origins of historical science, believed that knowledge and enlightenment determine the course of the historical process. The main thought that permeates the works
N. M. Karamzina (1766 - 1826), ("History of the state of the Russian
»), - the need for a wise autocracy for Russia.

The largest Russian historian of the nineteenth century. S. M. Soloviev (1820-1870
) ("History of Russia since ancient times") saw the course of history
countries in the transition from ancestral relations to the family and further to
statehood. The three most important factors: the nature of the country, nature -
the tribe and the course of external events, as the historian believed, objectively determined the course of Russian history.
Student S. M. Solovieva V. O. Klyuchevsky (1841 - 1911) ("Course of Russian history"), developing the ideas of his teacher, he believed that it was necessary to identify the entire set of facts and factors (geographical, -
ethnic, economic, social, political, etc.),
characteristic for each period. "Human nature, human society
state and nature of the country - these are the three main forces that are
yat is a human hostel ".

Russian specificity and even its “uniqueness” are only a kind of manifestation of global processes. The manifestation is often extreme. But that is precisely why understanding Russian history is a necessary condition for realizing what is happening in the world. And, on the contrary: without an understanding of world history, the Russian past really turns into a chain of ridiculous mysteries, which, as the poet said, cannot be understood by the mind or measured by a common yardstick. Disciple of the prominent liberal historian Klyuchevsky Mikhail Pokrovsky came to the conclusion that the Russian past needs a radical rethinking, and the Marxist analysis provides the key to a new understanding of events. K. Marx in the middle of the 19th century. formulated the concept of a materialistic explanation of history, which was based on the formational approach. He proceeded from the following principle: if humanity is progressively developing as a single whole, then all of it must go through certain stages in its development. The thinker called these stages "socio-economic formations." The totality of production relations forms its basis, over which political, legal and other relations are tuned, which, in turn, correspond to certain forms of social consciousness: morality, religion, art, philosophy, science, etc. The transition from one socio-economic formation to another is carried out on the basis of a social revolution. In this regard, the class struggle was declared the most important driving force of history. However, a person appears in this theory only as a cog in a powerful objective mechanism.

In the 30s of the XX century, a new direction of historical thought arose in France, which received the name of the school "Annals". Followers of this trend often use the concept of civilization. Civilization - a set or a certain level of achievements of material and spiritual culture, techniques and methods of human contact with nature, a way of life, established stereotypes of thinking and behavior... Scientists believe that history is designed to study a person in the unity of all his social manifestations. Social relations and labor activity, forms of consciousness and collective feelings, customs and folklore - in these angles a person appears in the works of this direction. The weakness of the methodology of the civilizational approach lies in the amorphousness of the criteria for distinguishing the types of civilizations. Intellectual and spiritual and moral structures of a person undoubtedly play a very important role in history, but their indicators are poorly perceptible, vague. With all the diversity of civilizations in the history of mankind, two macrocommunities can be distinguished - the East and the West.

In domestic and world historiography, there is
There are three main points of view on the problem of singularities
(specifics) of Russian history. Advocates of the first, adhering to the concept
unilinearity of world history, believe that all countries
us and peoples, including Russia and the Russian nation, pro
walk in their evolution the same, common to all,
stages move along one, common for all, path.
Certain features of Russian history are interpreted
representatives of this school as a manifestation of lagging behind
loyalty to Russia and Russians. In the brightest
In what form is this point of view presented in the writings of you
a given Russian historian Sergei Mikhailovich Co-
Lovyeva.

Supporters of the second approach to Russian history is
go from concept multilinearity of historical times
ornate... They believe that the history of mankind consists
from the stories of a number of distinctive civilizations, each
giving of which mainly develops (developed)
any one (or a specific combination of several
kih) side of human nature, evolves along
your own way; one of these civilizations is the Russian (Slavic) civilization. From
domestic researchers, this approach is most
more comprehensive form is justified by the late Slavophiles
scrap by Nikolay Yakovlevich Danilevsky.

A third group of authors is trying to reconcile both approaches. A prominent Russian historian and public figure belonged to the representatives of this trend.
Pavel Nikolaevich Milyukov... In his opinion, in history
As a result, three main groups are distinguished
conditions producing it: “The first condition is an internal tendency
tion, the internal law of development, inherent in every society and for every society the same. Second
condition
this lies in the peculiarities of that material
environment, environment, among which this society is destined to develop.
Finally, the third condition is to influence
the development of an individual human personality on the course of historical
sky process ".

So, representatives of the three approaches in different ways
They raise the problem of the peculiarities of Russian history. However
less all of them recognize the impact on its course of some
powerful factors (causes, conditions), under the influence of
the history of Russia is significantly different from that of
ries of Western societies.

What are these conditions? In domestic and foreign historiography, 4 factors are usually distinguished, which determined the features (lagging behind
loyalty, originality, originality) of the Russian
stories: natural and climatic; geopolitical; religious; social organization.

Influence natural and climatic factor noted by all researchers, one of the last to dwell on this problem L.V. Milov using a solid factual basis. Russia lies in the zone of action of the Arctic anticyclone, which makes temperature fluctuations significant up to 35-40 degrees per year. In Europe, the peasant has no "off season", which teaches him to systematic work. In Russia, deep freezing of the soil and a short spring, turning into a hot summer, make the peasant, after the domestic worries of the winter season, quickly switch to agricultural work - plowing, sowing, the speed of which depends on his well-being throughout the year. Summer for the Russian peasant is a period of suffering, of the utmost exertion of strength. This develops in a Russian person the ability to “give his best, do a great job in a short time. But the time of suffering is short. Winter in Russia lasts from 4 to 7 months. Therefore, the main form of attitude towards work is a leisurely-passive attitude.

However, such an attitude to work and life is associated with another value of the Russian person - his patience, which has become one of the traits of the national character. It is better to "endure" than to undertake anything, to change the course of life. This behavior is justified by the nature of the labor and settlement of the Russian peasants. The development of forests that covered most of the country, deforestation and uprooting, plowing of the land required the collective work of several families. Working in a team, people acted in a uniform way, trying not to stand out from others. The cohesion of the team was more important than the effectiveness of the activities of each of the people who made it up. As a result, individualism has developed poorly among Russians, forcing them to strive for initiative, increasing labor efficiency and personal enrichment. The support of the collective guaranteed the peasant a certain amount of irresponsibility in the performance of certain actions, the opportunity to act "at random" without thinking. The serf or dependent peasant in Europe fled to the city, which was an island of democracy and law in the midst of a sea of ​​feudal willfulness. There was nowhere else to run, except over the sea. In Russia they fled not to the city, but to the Cossacks, from where "there was no extradition", to the schismatics - to the outskirts, to undeveloped lands. As a result, urban, bourgeois values ​​were developed in Europe, and communal, collectivist ones in Russia. The European solved his problems by developing prudence and self-interest, and the Russian - affirming the equalizing collectivist ideals. At the political level, this was manifested, respectively, in bourgeois revolutions, as a result of which the state as an institution fell into dependence on civil society and the values ​​of liberalism and democracy were established, or in peasant wars, during which Cossacks and peasants tried to translate their egalitarian ideals into the life of the state. The result of such attempts was only the strengthening of the authoritarian, undivided power of the state.

Colonization undermined demographic conditions historical development. If in Europe the growth of population density stimulated the processes of creating cities, class formation, intensification of the economy, then in Russia each of the stages of colonization was associated with a greater or lesser drop in population density in the center of the country. This was a consequence of the fact that Russian colonization was carried out not only as a result of population growth, but also due to resettlement, the flight of people from nomads, social oppression and hunger. Colonization of lands in the IX-XVII centuries. more and more alienated Russia from Europe, hindered the assimilation of the advanced achievements of European civilization. In the IX-XII centuries. the ancient Russian state was created on the great European trade route "from the Varangians to the Greeks", linking northern and southern Europe. Two centers of ancient Russia: Novgorod and Kiev stood at the key points of this path. However, already in the XIII century. the trade route "from the Varangians to the Greeks" began to yield its role to the "amber route" that went through central Europe. This was due to the transition of the role of the leading world power in the Mediterranean from Byzantium to the Republic of Venice. As a result, Russia lost its political weight and became the periphery of Europe. ... In the process of colonizing the eastern lands, Russia became part of the Eurasian geopolitical space, in which authoritarian forms of power prevailed since ancient times.

The paradox of Russia's historical development was that it was damaged not only by a drop in the natural productivity of natural forces as it moved from the chernozem southwest to the loamy lands of the northeast in the 13th century (the yield dropped by 1.5-2 times). "Asiatic", stagnation in the development of industry led to the fact that stagnation was also promoted by the discovery and development of new natural resources. The concentration in the first half of the 19th century of serf heavy industry in the Urals, which is rich in natural resources, led to a sharp lag in Russia from the West in this industry, which is important for the industrialization and defense of the country. It was the wealth of resources that made the introduction of free labor and new technological processes in metallurgy and metalworking considered unimportant. The development of the black earth lands of the Black Sea and Volga regions led not only to an increase in crop yields, but also to the development of serfdom in the 18th century, which hindered social development. Until the beginning of the 20th century, the unprecedented wealth of Siberia was practically unused. Russia's trouble was not a lack of natural resources, but in the socio-political system and cultural tradition, permeated with communal and Asian influences, which did not allow these resources to be used.

The historical life of the Russian people was extremely complicated by such a factor as natural openness of the borders of Russian lands for foreign invasions from the West and East ... The constant threat of military incursions and the openness of the border lines demanded colossal efforts from the Russian and other peoples of Russia to ensure their security: significant material costs, human resources. Moreover, security interests demanded a concentration of popular efforts: as a result, the role of the state should have increased enormously.

About the next geopolitical factor – isolation from sea trade ... To break through to the seas, Russia had to wage intense bloody wars for centuries.

If the factors considered above have shaped the body of Russia, temperament, skills and habits of the Russian people, then religion - Eastern Christianity- brought up their soul. In Eastern Christianity, the confrontation between secular power and the church ends with the complete absorption of the secular power of the church. The royal power, standing over everything, is not controlled by anything.

Orthodoxy teaches that God is separate from the world and unknowable, but God can be seen and felt. No definition can be applied to God. Hence, the idea of ​​mystery and unknowability is strong in Russian culture (Russia is a Sphinx "in Blok," Russia cannot be understood with the mind "in Tyutchev, etc.)

The Western European idea of ​​knowledge of God teaches that since Christ (God) descended to earth, he is knowable. The civilization of the West seeks to cognize the object not holistically, but analytically, defining, structuring, dismembering, describing features. Protestant-Catholic culture is based on rational knowledge, and Russian-Orthodox culture is based on holistic knowledge. The culture of the West is dialogical, the culture of Russia is monologic.

Under the influence of the above factors:
native-climatic, geopolitical, religious
go, - a specific social
organization. Its main elements are as follows:

primary economic and social unit - corporate
walkie-talkie (community, artel, partnership, collective farm, cooperative
tiv, etc.), and not a private property education,
as in the West;

the state is not a superstructure over
civil society, as in Western countries, and
the backbone, and sometimes the demiurge (creator) of civil society;

statehood either has
sacred character, or ineffective ("turmoil");

state, society, personality are not divided, not
autonomous, as in the West, but mutually permeable, whole
stny;

the core of statehood is
radio service nobility (nobility, nomenclature).
This social organization was distinguished by its extreme
tea resistance and, changing their forms, and not essence,
was recreated after each shock of the Russian
history, ensuring the vitality of Russian society.

What is the place of Russia in the world society? What type of civilizations can it be attributed to?

1. Russia - peripheral, local, Orthodox Christian civilization... According to the sociologist A.J. Toynbee, Western European and Russian civilization have a "common mother," a sisterhood. "Each local civilization, experiencing similar and interconnected paths with neighboring stages, at the same time had its own unique destiny, its own rhythm, now approaching, now moving away from the countries moving in the vanguard." Determining the place of Russian civilization, the Russian philosopher N. Ya. Danilevsky wrote in his book "Russia and Europe": "If Russia ... does not belong to Europe by birthright, it belongs to it by right of adoption."

2. Russia is a country of the eastern type. Attempts were made to include Russia in the European version - the adoption of Christianity, the reforms of Peter I, but they were unsuccessful. October 1917 returned Russia to eastern despotism. Evidence of the eastern type of development is the cyclical nature of Russia's development - from reforms to counterreforms.

3. Russia is a special Eurasian civilization. It differs from both the West and the East - it is a special world - Eurasia. Russian nationality is a combination of the Turkic, Finno-Ugric and Slavic ethnic groups. The ideas of Eurasianism were very close to N.A. Berdyaev, “the Russian people are not a West European people, they are mostly an East Asian people.” Eurasians attach exceptional importance to Russian culture, in which the Orthodox idea plays a decisive role. Russia is a closed continent that can exist in isolation and has a special mentality, a special spirituality.

Control questions:

1. What is the subject of study of historical science?

2. What are the modern theories of the history of human society?

3. Name the largest representatives of Russian historical science.

4. What are the features of the geographic location of Russia?

5. What influence did the peculiarities of Russia's geopolitical position have on the state mechanism?

6. What types of civilizations do you know and to which of them can Russia be attributed?

We have characterized the main types of civilization that formed in the Ancient World, Antiquity and the Middle Ages. In the era of the Middle Ages, the entry into the world historical process begins, first of Russia, and then of Russia. The question naturally arises: what type of civilization can it be attributed to? The solution to this issue is of great importance for the methodology of studying the history of Russia. But this is not just a historical and scientific, but a socio-political and spiritual and moral problem. This or that solution to this problem is associated with the choice of the path of development of our country, the definition of the main value guidelines. Therefore, the discussion on this issue did not stop throughout the entire Russian history. In our opinion, there is no need to reproduce the entire course of this discussion. In presenting the relevant topics, we will touch on this issue. Now it is necessary to fix the basic principled positions.

The main question of this discussion is how is the legacy of Eastern and Western civilizations related in the history of Russia? To what extent is the distinctive civilization of Russia? Historians, publicists and public figures give answers to these questions from the height of their time, taking into account all the previous historical development of Russia, as well as in accordance with their ideological and political principles. In historiography and journalism of the XIX-XX centuries. a polar solution to these issues was reflected in the position of the Westernizers and Slavophiles.

Westerners or "Europeanists" (V.G.Belinsky, T.N. Granovsky, A.I. Herzen, N.G. Chernyshevsky, etc.) civilization. They believe that Russia, albeit with some lag, has developed along the lines of Western civilization.

Many characteristics of Russian history speak in favor of this point of view. The overwhelming majority of the population of Russia professes Christianity and, therefore, is committed to the values ​​and socio-psychological attitudes that underlie Western civilization. The reform activities of many statesmen: Prince Vladimir, Peter I, Catherine II, Alexander II are aimed at including Russia in Western civilization.

There is another extreme position, the adherents of which are trying to classify Russia as a country with an Eastern type of civilization.

Supporters of this position believe that those few attempts to integrate Russia into Western civilization ended unsuccessfully and did not leave a deep trace in the self-consciousness of the Russian people and its history. Russia has always been a kind of Eastern despotism. One of the most important arguments in favor of this position is the cyclical nature of Russia's history: the period of reforms was inevitably followed by a period of counter-reforms, and the reformation was followed by a counter-reformation. Supporters of this position also point to the collectivist nature of the mentality of the Russian people, the absence of democratic traditions in Russian history, respect for freedom, dignity of the individual, the vertical nature of socio-political relations, their predominantly subordinate coloring, etc.

But the largest trend in the historical and social thought of Russia is the ideological and theoretical trend that defends the idea of ​​Russia's identity. Supporters of this idea are Slavophiles, Eurasians and many other representatives of the so-called "patriotic" ideology. Slavophiles (A.S. Khomyakov, K.S.Aksakov, F.F. Samarin, I.I.Kireevsky and their followers) linked the idea of ​​the originality of Russian history with an exceptionally unique way of development of Russia, and, therefore, with the exceptional originality of Russian culture. The initial thesis of the teachings of the Slavophiles is to affirm the decisive role of Orthodoxy for the formation and development of Russian civilization. According to A. S. Khomyakov, it was Orthodoxy that formed "that primordially Russian quality, that" Russian spirit "that created the Russian land in its infinite volume."

The fundamental idea of ​​Russian Orthodoxy, and, consequently, of the entire structure of Russian life is the idea collegiality. Conciliarity is manifested in all spheres of life of the Russian person: in the church, in the family, in society, in relations between states. In the opinion of the Slavophiles, collegiality is the most important quality that separates Russian society from the entire Western civilization. Western peoples, moving away from the decisions of the first seven Ecumenical Councils, perverted the Christian creed and thereby consigned to oblivion the conciliar principle. And this gave rise to all the flaws of European culture and, above all, its mercantilism and individualism.

Russian civilization is inherent high spirituality, based on an ascetic worldview, and collectivist, communal structure of social life. From the point of view of the Slavophiles, it was Orthodoxy that gave birth to a specific, social organization - a rural community, a "world" that has an economic and moral significance.

In the description of the agricultural community, the Slavophiles clearly see the moment of its idealization, embellishment. The economic activity of the community is presented as a harmonious combination of personal and public interests, and all members of the community act in relation to each other as “comrades and shareholders”. At the same time, they nevertheless admitted that in the modern structure of the community there are negative aspects generated by the existence of serfdom. Slavophiles condemned serfdom and advocated its abolition.

However, the Slavophiles saw the main advantage of the rural community in the spiritual and moral principles that it educates its members: the willingness to stand up for common interests, honesty, patriotism, etc. In their opinion, the emergence of these qualities in community members does not happen consciously, but instinctively, by following ancient religious customs and traditions.

Based on the principled principle that the community is the best form of social organization of life, the Slavophiles demanded that the communal principle be made all-encompassing, that is, to transfer it to the sphere of urban life, to industry. The communal structure should also be the basis of state life and be capable, in their words, of replacing "the abomination of administration in Russia."

The Slavophiles believed that as the “communal principle” spreads in Russian society, the “spirit of conciliarity” would be strengthened more and more. The guiding principle of social relations will be the self-denial of everyone in favor of all. " Thanks to this, the religious and social aspirations of people will merge into a single stream. As a result, the task of our internal history will be fulfilled, which they define as "the enlightenment of the people's communal principle by the communal, church principle."

Slavophilism is based on the ideology of Pan-Slavism. Their idea of ​​the special fate of Russia is based on the idea of ​​the exclusivity, the specialness of the Slavs. Another important area advocating the idea of ​​the identity of Russia is Eurasianism(P.A.Karsavin, I.S. Trubetskoy, G.V. Florovsky and others). The Eurasians, in contrast to the Slavophiles, insisted on the exclusiveness of Russia and the Russian ethnos. This exclusivity, in their opinion, was determined by the synthetic character of the Russian ethnos. Russia is a special type of civilization that differs from both the West and the East. They called this special type of civilization Eurasian.

In the Eurasian concept of the civilizational process, a special place was given to the geographical factor (natural environment) - the "place of development" of the people. This environment, in their opinion, determines the characteristics of various countries and peoples, their identity and destiny. Russia occupies the middle space of Asia and Europe, roughly outlined by three great plains: East European, West Siberian and Turkestan. These huge flat areas, devoid of natural sharp geographical boundaries, left an imprint on the history of Russia, contributed to the creation of a kind of cultural world.

A significant role in the argumentation of the Eurasians was assigned to the peculiarities of the ethnogenesis of the Russian nation. The Russian ethnos was formed not only on the basis of the Slavic ethnos, but under the strong influence of the Turkic and Ugro-Finnish tribes. The influence on Russian history and Russian self-consciousness of the eastern "Turanian", predominantly Turkic-Tatar element associated with the Tatar-Mongol yoke was especially emphasized.

The methodological attitudes of the Eurasians were largely shared by the prominent Russian thinker N.A. Berdyaev.

One of the most important characteristics of the Russian national individuality, according to Berdyaev, is its deep polarization and contradictoriness. “The contradiction and complexity of the Russian soul, he notes, may be due to the fact that in Russia two streams of world history collide and come into interaction: East and West. The Russian people are not a purely European and not a purely Asian people. Russia is a whole part of the world, a huge East-West, it connects two worlds. And always in the Russian soul, two principles fought, the eastern and the western "(Berdyaev N. A. Russian idea. The main problems of Russian thought in the XIX and early XX centuries. In the collection" On Russia and Russian philosophical culture. Philosophers of the Russian post-October abroad ". - M., 1990 .-- P. 44).

ON. Berdyaev believes that there is a correspondence between the immensity, the boundlessness of the Russian land and the Russian soul. In the soul of the Russian people there is the same immensity, boundlessness, striving towards infinity, as in the Russian plain. The Russian people, Berdyaev argues, were not a people of a culture based on ordered rational principles. He was a people of revelation and inspiration. Two opposite principles formed the basis of the Russian soul: the pagan Dionistic element and the ascetic-monastic Orthodoxy. This duality permeates all the main characteristics of the Russian people: despotism, state hypertrophy and anarchism, liberty, cruelty, propensity for violence and kindness, humanity, gentleness, ritualism and the search for truth, individualism, heightened personality consciousness and impersonal collectivism, nationalism, self-praise and universalism, all-humanity, eschatological-messianic religiosity and outward piety, the search for God and militant atheism, humility and arrogance, slavery and rebellion. These contradictory features of the Russian national character predetermined, in Berdyaev's opinion, all the complexity and cataclysms of Russian history.

It should be noted that each of the concepts defining the place of Russia in world civilization is based on certain historical facts. At the same time, these concepts clearly show a one-sided ideological orientation. We would not like to take the same one-sided ideologized position. Let's try to give an objective analysis of the course of the historical development of history in the context of the development of world civilization.

SECTION 1

CIVILIZATION SEARCH OF RUSSIAN SOCIETY

Topic 1. Theoretical and methodological foundations of the civilizational approach to history.

1. What does history science study? What is its subject?

Sources:

• History of Russia IX-XX centuries .: Textbook \ ed. G.A. Amon, N.P. Ionicheva.-M .: INFRA-M, 2002. p. 3-4

A story, literally translated from Greek, is a narrative, a story about what was learned, explored.

History is a science that studies the past of human society in all its spatial concreteness and diversity in order to understand the present and development trends of the future.

The object of study is the past of mankind.

Between the reality that really existed, i.e. the past, and the result of the scientist's research - a scientifically recreated picture of the world - is an intermediate link. It is called a historical source. This is the subject of study.

It is customary to distinguish 7 main groups of historical sources: written, material, ethnographic, oral, linguistic, photo film documents, soundtracks.

2. What are the main types of civilizations. Which of them does Russia belong to?

Sources:

• History of Russia IXX-XX centuries .: Textbook \ ed. G.A. Amon, N.P. Ionicheva - M .: INFRA-M, 2002. From 6-13

Civilization is a community of people with a similar mentality, common fundamental values ​​and ideals, as well as stable features in a socio-political organization, economy, and culture.

There are three types of development of civilizations: non-progressive, cyclical and progressive.

TO non-progressive type of development include peoples living in accordance with nature (the aborigines of Australia, some tribes in Africa, American Indians, small peoples of Siberia and northern Europe). These peoples see the purpose and meaning of existence in the preservation of customs, methods there, traditions that do not violate the unity with nature.

Cyclic type of development originated in ancient times in the countries of the East (India, China, etc.), society and people in it exist within the framework of historical time, which is divided into past, present and future. For these peoples, the golden age is in the past, it is poeticized and serves as a role model.

The cyclical (eastern) type of civilization is still widespread in Asia, Africa, America. The standard of living of the people with this type of development is extremely low. Therefore, in the twentieth century, projects appeared to accelerate and develop society and improve human life.

Progressive type of civilization development (western civilization) main features:

• The class structure of society with developed forms of trade unions, parties, programs, ideologies;
• Private property, the market as a way of regulating the functioning, high prestige of entrepreneurship;
• Horizontal ties between individuals and cells of society, independent of power: economic, social, cultural, spiritual;
• A legal democratic state that regulates social and class relations to resolve social conflicts, ensure civil peace and implement the ideas of progress.

From the standpoint of ethnogenesis and civilizational approach, Russia does not belong to any of the three types of civilizations in its purest form. Russia is a special civilization, a historically formed conglomerate of peoples belonging to different types of development, united by a powerful centralized state, based on the Great Russian Orthodox core.

Russia is located between two powerful centers of civilizational influence, the East and the West, and includes peoples developing both in the Eastern and Western versions.

Topic 2. Formation and main stages of development of the Old Russian state. Civilization of Ancient Russia.

1. What are the main stages of development of the Old Russian state.

Sources:

• History of Russia IX-XX centuries .: Textbook \ ed. G.A. Amon, N.P. Ionicheva - M .: INFRA-M, 2002. p. 38-58.
• Domestic history before 1917: textbook \ ed. Prof. AND I. Froyanov. - M .: Gardariki, 2002. From 19-87.

Stage 1. (IX - middle of X centuries) - the time of the first Kiev princes.

862 - a mention in the annals of the vocation of the Varangian prince Rurik to reign in Novgorod. 882 The unification of Novgorod and Kiev under the rule of Prince Oleg (879-912). 907, 911 - campaigns of Prince Oleg to Constantinople. The signing of the treaty between Russia and the Greeks. 912-945 Igor's reign. 945 - Uprising in the land of the Drevlyans. 945-972 biennium - the reign of Svyatoslav Igorevich. 967-971 biennium - War of Prince Svyatoslav with Byzantium.