The Science Work
Site is for sale:
Category: History

Russian revolutions of the beginning of the 20th century and anarcho-syndicalist theory

VESTNIK MGUS No. 2 (2)/2007



V.K. Kuzakov. Astrology through a prism of a historiography of history of astronomy//Natural science representations of Ancient Russia. - M, 1988. - Page 282.

2 Daniil Svyatsky. Literature of heretics of Novgorod of the Great end of the 15th century//Mirovedeniye. - M, 1927. - No. 2.
3 Daniil Svyatsky. The astrologer Nikolay Lyubchanin and almanacs in Russia 16th century

>//News of scientific institute of P.F. Lesgaft. - M, 1929. - T. XV.

>- Issue 1, 2.

4 Researches on this subject - V.P. Zubov, V.K. Kuzakov. About perception in the 15th century in Russia of the astronomical treatise "Shestokryl" / Istorikoastronomicheskiye of a research. - M, 1975. - Issue XII.
5 M.A. Shangin. About a role of the Greek astrological manuscripts in the history of knowledge//News of Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Office of the humanities. - M, 1930.
6 B.E. Raykov. Essays on the history of heliocentric outlook in Russia.

>- M.-L., 1947. - Page 65.

7 Baneberries - B.A. Velyaminov. Astronomy history essays in Russia. - M,
1956. - Page 8.

B.V. Kukarkin. Some methodological issues of history of astronomy

>//IAI. - M, 1961. - T. VII.

9 V.K. Kuzakov. Essays of development of natural science and technical representations in Russia the 10-17th centuries - M., 1976.
10 V.K. Kuzakov. Astrology through a prism of a historiography of history of astronomy//Natural science representations of Ancient Russia. - M, 1988. - Page 289.
11 E.B. Emchenko. Hundred-heads: Research and text. - M, 2000.
12 V.V. Titov. False and otrechyonny books of Slavic and Russian old times.

>- M, 1999. - Page 106.

Thunders M.N. Maximus the Greek. - M, 1983. - Page 181.

Sinitsyna N.V. Maximus the Greek in Russia. - M, 1975. - Page 96.

Skrynnikov R.G. Ivan the Terrible. - M, 2001. - Page 348.

J. Gorsey. Notes about Moskovia the 16th century / Ioann Grozny. Anthology.

>- M, 2004. - Page 420.

Quote by Kukovenko V. Ivan the Terrible and Oprichnina / Ioann Grozny. Anthology. - M, 2004. - Page 478-479.


RGADA. T. 210. Prikazny table. Stb. No. 547. L. 74, 75; Stb. No. 283. L. 252. P.V. Snesarevsky. Papal Nuncio Antonio Possevino//history Questions.

- 1967. - No. 2.


Yu.N. Shcherbachev. Russian acts of the Copenhagen state archive//RIB. - T. XVI. - SPb., 1897. Stb. No. 203.

Notes of the hetman Zholkevsky about the Moscow war. - SPb., 1871. - Page 3.

Weight And. Short news of Moskovia at the beginning of the 17th century//Ioann Grozny. Anthology. - 2004. - Page 521.

Notes of the French officer of the Item Delavil / Russian messenger. - 1841. - No. 3. S.F. Platonov Moscow and the West in the 15-16th centuries. - L., 1925. - Page 45.

V.K. Kuzakov. About perception in the 15th century in Russia of the astrological treatise "Shestokryl" / Historical and astronomical researches. - M, 1975.

- Issue XII.

I.S. Peresvetov. The first prediction of philosophers and doctors / Composition

I. Peresvetova. - M.-L., 1956. - Page 161.

27 V.V. Titov. Decree. soch. - Page 108. See also Arkhangelsk Ampere-second. "Essays from history of the West Russian literature of the XVI-XVII centuries".
28 A.A. Turilov, Chernetsov A.V. Otrechennaya book Rafli / Institute of the Russian literature. Leningrad. Department of Old Russian literature. - T. X. - L., 1985.
29 Domestic tyranny. - M, 1990. - Page 38.
30 M.A. Shangin. About a role of the Greek astrological manuscripts in the history of knowledge//News of Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Office of the humanities. 1930. - Page 312.
31 I.P. sugars. Signs about stars / Legends of the Russian people. - SPb., 1885.

>- Prince 1-2.

32 G. Staden. Notes about Moskovia / Ioann Grozny. Anthology. - M, 2004.

>- Page 418.

33 A.A. Sevastyanova. Jerome Gorsey's notes about Russia at the end of XVI - the beginning of the 17th age//Questions of a historiography and source study of national history. - M, 1974. - Page 111-112.

UDC 94 "19/..."

Russian revolutions of the beginning of the 20th century and anarcho-syndicalist theory

M.V. Dvorkovaya

GOUVPO "Moscow State University of service"

The anarchism originates in the depth of the Russian history. Anarchical moods both in individuals, and in masses, were based upon the mental soil. The mental anarchism in Russia, as well as in Western Europe, appeared early enough. This anarchism was very simple, as well as those who professed it, to it it was pushed by customs, life and economic way of society. But it progressed, became complicated and developed parallel to development of the people and its economic forms.

If anarchical moods in Russia did not lead to the wide movement, it, for example, as the movement of Anabaptists, then, nevertheless, they had the largest impact on a warehouse of nature of the people, on its psychology. This outlook in a little primitive form affected in all great social movements. Reflection of this outlook can be observed also in other, smaller, people's movements following the specified large.

After the Russian revolution of 1905-1907 there was an anarchism which is associated with such phenomena as "mysticism", "conciliarity" and so forth. But it was the intellectual anarchism which was as a result about -

shchestvenny disappointment, this phenomenon of depressive character, result of disappointments, creativity of weak intellectual intelligence.

In opinion of both contemporaries, and researchers, this anarchism in general, with all its shades, did not represent and does not represent force which defines character and force of people's movements, and hardly it ever will be such force. It never turned into a socio-political factor of revolutionary movement with which it would be necessary to reckon. "Therefore we do not attach it relevant and social significance". It was written by one of theorists of syndicalism who, however, not just watched development of anarchism from outside, but also itself participated in political life of Russia of the first third of the XX century.

It is worth paying attention to the social and economic aspects of anarchism gaining strength after the first Russian revolution of the beginning of the XX century. Then it was openly said that "during any strike, during any fight with capitalists the workers have to leave no stone unturned fight. Fight class is civil war, but not a peaceful demonstration, not the selective comedy. It is war



VESTNIK MGUS №2 (2)/2007

in all deep and terrible meaning, courageous; more far-sighted, better organized and armed (the conflict - M.D.), because we, anarchists syndicalists, call workers not to ballot boxes, and terribly we proclaim a slogan: Companions! Be organized and arm! Companions, to weapon!". In rhetoric of syndicalists it is absolutely difficult to part slogans: by means of what seek to win round potential supporters from the circle of the most radical population groups, and those which really capture the essence of political outlook what makes "core" of classical anarchism. Anarchists perfectly saw danger of similar of "double standards". As G. Maximov, "on this soil noted (slogans - short-lived propaganda materials

>- M of D.) a ryegrass of the sketchy acquired anarchical provisions which gave magnificent shoots sprouted... There ascended not the anarchism, but its distorted face armed with denial of the organization in general, the worker in particular, sciences, cultures not bourgeois, and in general everyone, with bezmotivny terror, with private expropriation. The anarchist without bomb and a revolver - not the anarchist... Of course, there were exceptions and exceptions not of a single order, but the general background after all was such is. Other it could not be. Because that it was another, it was necessary to enter revolution with other baggage. Of course, wine here not so much anarchism and anarchists, how many objective conditions. And the anarchism had to pass this bloody Way of the Cross".

It was written nearly ten years later after 1917, at anarchists (and syndicalists including) there was time to consider current situation, to comprehend all that happened to their movement in days of revolutions and Civil war. Conclusions are unfavourable. Anarchists recognized that they could not be prepared for so serious changes of the state and society, they understood that their knowledge base, tactics and strategy, the theory, at last, - all this in a germ which bears on itself(himself) a romanticism raid. From here and that image of the anarchist which developed in the opinion of the inhabitant in Russia in 1917-1921. Of course, also "objective conditions" could play a role: that is features of political development of Russia those years, but anarchists are also right that this way

>- "the bloody way" (and it is more correct to tell - a way of defeats, miscalculations, the unlucky unions and so forth) needed to be passed.

Similar generalization is important the fact that, even being in emigration, the Russian anarchists faced opinion of other political movements on rejection by inhabitants of their tactics in days of the Russian revolutions (19051907 and the 1917th). The Russian emigration did not believe in naked rebelliousness as the main method of fulfillment of social revolution any more, did not believe "in blind and rough elements", being the real fetish, did not believe in expropriation not only as means of fight against a private property, but also "as means of getting of money for needs of the movement, on setting of anarchical work". Besides, anti-syndicalist moods calmed down. Emigration obviously took turn towards anarcho-syndicalism which was recognized as some "entirely and unconditionally", others - partially, with reservations, the third - is careful, mistrustful, "critically" - "critical anarcho-syndicalists".

It was extremely important from that point of view,

according to which as considered many, revolution of 1917 pushed off "critical syndicalists" from their position: they became anarcho-syndicalists. But syndicalists believed in similar evolution poorly, critically approaching own estimates of the movement. The begun process, however, did not end, the reviving syndicalist movement bore in itself negative properties and echoes of the past: a high temperamentnost in connection with the low anarchical literacy causing primitive understanding of anarchism and put forward by revolution and life of tasks, chaos in the theory and tactics and a phrase.

We will try to approach a problem of a ratio of anarchist outlooks and realities of life by means of synthesis of their theory and practice of times of the Russian revolutions of the beginning of the XX century.

For example, in P.A. Berlin's research (published in 1917) M.A. Bakunin's views of revolutionary process and future structure of the state are interpreted as follows: "From powerful revolutionary blows the world has to break up to the separate communities, federations which are living life on the communistic beginnings". The most ready to revolutionary explosion, according to M.A. Bakunin, are "lumpen proletarian". However the immediate task of the real anarchists syndicalists not cultivation of lumpens, but control possible increase in their number by means of reduction of the working day and increase in the salary that perhaps thanks to formation of labor unions and promotion of the ideas of economic release of working class.

Even radical Marxists recognized, "that these words contain in a germ all program of so-called "revolutionary syndicalism" which essential lines are: purely economic propaganda, the professional organization of the proletariat away from the state and all political parties, non-interference of working class to political struggle and to political conflicts of bourgeois society, replacement of political centralization with centralization economic, and the political world - federation of trade unions".

In terms of assessment of bakuninsky theoretical heritage in general similar generalization could mean one: slogans with appeals "to pedal" the ideas of civil war - only a propaganda step. Even such radical anarchists as Bakunin, it is most likely supporters of realization in practice of the ideas of syndicalism. Origin in trade-union relationship of that social order which, based on consciousness of citizens (but not on their fear of the power), will replace a concept "state" was represented to them possible. About it, by the way, it was much written in the 1917th when the question of the state was the major for the political movements seeking to use chance of capture of the power at the monarchy: "At future socialist system when all lands, factories, the plants, mines, means of communication and all instruments of production become public property, the working organizations will replace modern public institutions".

In development of these ideas the new world of working institutions, a new social order which it is the most correct to call economic was promoted


VESTNIK MGUS №2 (2)/2007



This "system", according to syndicalists, was important because "concerning economic reorganization of the country the leaders of the Soviet state revealed the full powerlessness". At the same time anarcho-syndicalists perfectly understood value of economic transformations as "only the one who will be able to adjust economic life of the country will be her owner".

For the first time, perhaps, syndicalists have an expression "owner" (discussions of anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-communist went just around interpretation of this concept). The anarchist newspaper "Svobodnaya Kommuna" wrote: "They did not have any talented organizer, any skillful efficient head in the field of economic relationship". In anarchist periodicals it was noted that the Soviet power had certain interest in economic problems, but it goes on a false way - centralization, "political violence" and deprivation of workers of an initiative and independence that Bolsheviks are obliged by failures in the field of economy to the commitment to Marxism, the dogmatic theory which refuses to workers ability independently to create socialism.

That is anarchists did not recognize need of dictatorship of the proletariat, including its as impossible in the sphere of the economic relations. In September, 1918 the anarcho-syndicalist "Free voice of work" wrote that "in forms of this dictatorship the centralistsky power uniting government with property and even with anti-socialist morals begins to take shape and get stronger".

Thus, between syndicalists and radical circles (as from the anarchist movement, and, first of all, of Bolshevik Party) there were differences in approaches of definition of socialism in general and a socialist system of society in particular.

"Dictatorship of the proletariat" was presented to anarchists only by a cover of dictatorship of one party wishing independently without the interests of working layers to develop the system of development of society, production and the relations of work and the capital. Syndicalists criticized the Decree about working control at the V conference of factory committees of Petrograd in November, 1917, having said that "the law on control slowed down a way of advance". And in "A work voice" this position was supported with more concrete justifications: "... Time we definitely see that out of the question that the bourgeoisie will never go for working control, - so, it is necessary to understand and tell about the agreement with the bourgeoisie to himself also definitely: not control over production of the master's plants, but direct transition of factories, plants, mines, mines, all instruments of production and all means of communication and movement in hands of workers".

In other words, anarchists suggested to socialize at first the enterprises, and after already to realize "public and labor control" in practice.

The anarcho-syndicalist ideas about immediate socialization of means of production, passing a stage of working control, got at the end of 1917 support among labor unions in a number of the largest Russian cities. And therefore for criticism of working control anarkho-sindi-

kalist actively used stands of the All-Russian congresses of labor unions. Already at the I All-Russian congress of labor unions the anarchists convinced of need of socialization). At the II congress of labor unions the anarchists suggested to give to labor unions and cooperative associations all production, distribution and management. In questions of the leadership in trade-union movement the syndicalists supported the idea of independence of labor movement. At the I congress of labor unions they demanded creation of new Russia "without god, without tsar and without owner in labor union". As opponents of working control anarchists - members Soviet (though, in principle, probolshevistsk adjusted) VTsIK acted. They insisted on need to take production at once "in public hands" and accused the existing power of too soft attitude towards employees saboteurs. This position was supported also by A. Karelin: "These representatives of a capitalist system will not work for destruction of the class". Here, of course, the defining role was played by anarchist rhetoric, but not specifics of the moment.

His "member of the same party", V. Volin, denied need of the existence of the uniform manager regulating, ordering and disposing the center. Economic life of the country, according to Volin, will be "in a condition of harmonious balance and to progress natural and absolutely freely", only if "independent activity and the free intercourses" between the free unions, artels, federations of producers and consumers is carried out.

As modern researchers note, did not suit anarcho-syndicalists and the labor unions existing then (as the managing bodies) on which Bolsheviks actively leaned and which prior to civil war played a noticeable role in the organization of production. And only military communism with its rigid centralization and one-man management brought them to a state, subordinated, dependent on the power. The I All-Russian conference of anarchists syndicalists which was taking place in September, 1918 in the resolution "About labor unions, factory committees and labor exchanges" sharply criticized the existing labor unions for their active intervention in political struggle. As opposed to them the conference staked on factory committees: it, - anarchists said, - "our future, the organization young, fresh, full of blossoming and forces". Are designed to govern the relations of the committees united on the industries there were labor exchanges - "labor information bureaus" of future society, and only elective representatives of working committees could work in them.

The most competently possible syndicalist management plan production was stated by A.A. So-lonevich on pages of the Anarkhiya newspaper: the national economy is subordinated to two centers, the Central confederation of labor created especially on a contract basis and Labour exchange which task would include distribution regulation. However anarchists considered necessary folding of the commodity-money relations and development of the ideas of leveling distribution. It initially did Solonevich's plan impossible.

Utopianism of anarchist views on social



VESTNIK MGUS №2 (2)/2007

the economic relations of society were supported still with disagreements in an issue of management of process of production and distribution: anarcho-syndicalists saw need of a certain regulation of production, and anarcho-communist considered that "it will be necessary to conduct production and to transfer whom the prepared products" "descents of working free workshops".

Mr. Maximov on pages of a syndicalist "Voice of work" defended a position of classical anarchism, considering that only similar approach has, in the conditions of Russia, the right for existence: "Factories, the plants and so forth are not "property" of workers,

occupied in this production or working at this factory, - no: everything belongs to all workers, and everyone has identical quantity of the rights for any given factory, on any given plant, on any given mine". He emphasized that the factory or the plant are a part of the whole social production that regulators on the industries - the unions of the plants in scale from the area to "whole world" are necessary. The law of economic need has to be the principle of merging of the enterprises.

These theoretical reasonings were not confirmed in practice by activity of ordinary anarcho-syndicalists.

UDC 930 (091)

Everyday life of the West Russian orthodox brotherhoods according to a church historiography

A.E. Larionov

GOUVPO "Moscow State University of service"

Having created as the independent scientific direction several decades after secular historical science, the church historiography in Russia managed to make a noticeable contribution to studying national history, having covered a significant amount of those problems which almost did not draw before close research attention to themselves, being covered with peripetias of political and social and economic history. It is necessary to carry the history of emergence and development of orthodox national brotherhoods on those West Russian lands which were in the 14-18th centuries under the power of Lithuania and Poland to number of such questions which received due scientific lighting exactly thanks to researches of the Russian church historians. This problem received quite complete lighting on pages of historical works of two largest Russian church historians of the middle - the second half of the XIX century of the archbishop Filaret (Gumilevsky) and the metropolitan Makari (Bulgakov).

Considering a question of emergence of orthodox brotherhoods, arkhiyep. Filaret gives rather generalized characteristic of the reasons and, very approximately, points to a chronological framework of the beginning of this process. According to Filaret, strengthening of Catholic persecutions and coercion to the Union in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the second half of the 16th century became the main cause of orthodox brotherhoods among the Russian population of modern territories of Ukraine and Belarus. Covers a problem of time of emergence of brotherhoods of miters in more detail. Makari: "Data remained that in 1453 there were in Lviv eight orthodox churches and between them city Uspenskaya at whom there was an orthodox brotherhood". Thus, it is possible to say that emergence of brotherhoods in Russian lands under the power of Poland belongs no later than to the middle of the 15th century with confidence. Concerning the reasons of their emergence

Makari is quite solidary with Filaret: "Heavy circumstances of the West Russian Church... and oppressions from latinyan called Orthodox Christians to connect more closely between themselves for belief, and here from the very beginning of the present period (1458-1503) we see the first in time orthodox brotherhoods in the Lithuanian metropolitanate: in Galicia, in its main town - Lviv, another in the capital of the Lithuanian state - Vilne" 2 Parties of everyday life of orthodox brotherhoods church historians analyze one, proceeding from the initial purpose with which these brotherhoods were created. Using a context, it is possible to draw a conclusion that at emergence of brotherhoods there was some difference between motives of association of the population in them in Lviv and Vilna: "The Lviv brotherhood was actually religious. also had one purpose - to care for needs of local orthodox Church. Apparently, other the brotherhood in Vilna was formed. About 1458 vilensky kushner (furriers, furriers) established between themselves brotherhood under a name of kushnersky. They did a pooling of funds, bought and sytit honey by three in a year holidays: by Christmas, by day of Descent of the Holy Spirit and by a holiday of the Prelate Nikolay. Did candles of the remained wax and distributed on these holidays on churches, and drank sychyony honey on the same holidays brotherhood, gathering for a brotherly conversation" For studying everyday life of members of brotherhoods the last phrase is represented very important as shows us the organization and forms of sociocultural interaction in the collectives interesting us evolving from religious self-identification. It is obvious that for orthodox subject Lithuanian and Polish sovereigns the joint meal with obligatory consumption of ancient drink - intoxicated honey, had undoubted ritual value, serving as a symbol not only external, but also internal, spiritual unity. Subsequently, as it is possible to establish

Norman Watkins
Other scientific works: