Revolutionary Democrats. Great Russian revolutionary democrats

Philosophical views of Russian revolutionary democrats of the 19th century. - A. I. Herzen (1812-1870), V.G. Belinsky (1811-1848), Ya.G. Chernyshevsky (1828-1889) and N.A. Dobrolyubov (1836-1861) occupy a special place in the historical and philosophical process. These views arise in the conditions of a deep crisis of serfdom, which caused a noticeable lag in the socio-economic development of Russia from Western Europe. The philosophy of the Russian revolutionary democrats revealed the regularity of the world process of development of philosophical thought from the highest forms of pre-Marxist dialectics (Hegel) and materialism (Feuerbach) to scientific, dialectical and historical materialism.

In contrast to Feuerbach, the Russian revolutionary democrats understood the revolutionary significance of the spirit of Hegel's dialectic. Herzen saw in dialectics the "algebra of revolution". Chernyshevsky argued that human knowledge is dialectical, it develops from the simple to the complex, always remaining incomplete and relative. He substantiated the principles of a concrete historical approach to the analysis of natural and social phenomena, the concreteness of truth. Is war harmful or beneficial? - he asked and answered that this question cannot be answered by abstracting from the real concrete conditions.

A remarkable feature of the philosophy of the Russian revolutionary democrats was the striving to combine materialistic philosophy with the idea of ​​revolution. The realistic spirit of materialism, reinforced by dialectics, allowed Herzen, Belinsky, Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov to create a system of revolutionary democratic views based on the idea of ​​a peasant revolution, which, in their opinion, was supposed to lead to socialism through the peasant community, a kind of cell of socialism.

Having overcome the metaphysical and mechanistic ideas of previous materialism, the Russian revolutionary democrats, however, were unable to create the concept of matter, which would allow a materialistic explanation of social life, human essence and its development.

However, elements of a materialistic understanding of history arose in their views, closely connected with revolutionary democratic ideas. Revolutionary democrats substantiated the idea of ​​the decisive role of the masses in history, considered socialism a natural result of the development of society. Chernyshevsky associated the emergence of socialism with a change primarily in economic relations. Russian revolutionary democrats created a special kind of utopian socialism, which stood above the utopian socialism of Saint-Simon, Fourier and Owen, because Herzen, Belinsky, Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov associated socialism with economic transformations, considered it natural, and considered the revolution as a necessary tool for creating a socialist society.

Religious Russian philosophy of the late XIX - present. 20th century

Russian religious philosophy of the 20th century is being formed at the end of the "Petersburg" era, before the next and, perhaps, the most dramatic break in Russian history. This is an exceptionally complex spiritual phenomenon, which became possible, among other things, due to the high level of culture of St. Petersburg Russia at the beginning of the century. One can argue about the elitism or "narrowness" of the cultural layer of its bearers, about the prospects for its further development, but with all the contradictions, this clearly not "mass" culture met the highest criteria.

The philosophical process in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, of course, was not limited to religious philosophy. Practically all significant trends in Western philosophy were represented to one degree or another in contemporary Russian thought: from positivism and Marxism to Kantianism and phenomenology. Religious philosophy in that period was not the "main" or the most influential direction, but it was not some kind of secondary phenomenon (non-philosophical, literary-journalistic, etc.). Later, in the philosophical culture of the Russian diaspora (the first, post-revolutionary emigration), the work of religious thinkers already determines a lot and may well be recognized as the leading direction.

In historical and philosophical terms, it is preferable to talk not about religious quests, but about a certain Russian tradition of religious metaphysics. In post-Kantian philosophy, the attitude towards metaphysics determined the nature of many philosophical trends. Philosophers, who saw the danger posed to the very existence of philosophy by the tendencies of radical empiricism and philosophical subjectivism, sought an alternative in the revival and development of the tradition of metaphysical knowledge of supersensible principles and principles of being. On this path, both in Europe and in Russia, there was often a convergence of philosophy and religion. Russian religious thinkers, defining their own position precisely as metaphysical, used this term as a classical designation of philosophy dating back to Aristotle. In the dictionary of Brockhaus and Efron, V. S. Solovyov defines metaphysics as "a speculative doctrine about the initial foundations of any being or about the essence of the world." In the same place, the philosopher also writes about how the metaphysical experience of understanding “being in itself” (Aristotle) ​​comes into contact with the religious sphere: “The most complete systems of metaphysics seek, starting from one basic principle, to connect all others with an internal logical connection. began and thus create an integral, all-encompassing and all-round world outlook. Such a task raises "also the question of the true relationship between philosophy and religion."

In Russian religious philosophy of the 20th century, we find a significant variety of topics and approaches, including those that are quite far from the principles of the metaphysics of unity B.C. Solovyov. But his arguments against positivism, which denied the importance of metaphysics, were taken most seriously. Not least, this applies to his thesis about the "need for metaphysical knowledge" as an integral and essential component of human nature. Of course, the recognition of such a fundamental role of metaphysics is nothing exceptional in the history of philosophy. The largest reformer of the metaphysical tradition, I. Kant, wrote in his "Critique of Pure Reason" that "metaphysics does not exist as a finished building, but acts in all people as a natural disposition." Already in the 20th century, M. Heidegger, highly critical of the experience of Western metaphysics, also insisted on the rootedness of "metaphysical need" in human nature: "As long as a person remains a rational living being, he is a metaphysical living being."

In the last third of the 19th century in Russia, V. S. Solovyov was by no means the only one who advocated metaphysics and, accordingly, criticized positivism. A consistent choice in favor of metaphysics was made, for example, by such thinkers as Sergei Nikolayevich Trubetskoy (1862-1905), the largest historian of philosophy in Russia at that time, close in his philosophical views to the metaphysics of unity, and Lev Mikhailovich Lopatin (1855-1920), developed the principles of personalistic metaphysics. The Russian "religious-philosophical renaissance" should not be torn away from its origins, ignoring what has already been done in the field of metaphysics in the 19th century and, of course, in even earlier periods. But at the same time, these connections were not so direct and immediate. Sometimes they broke off. At the beginning of the 20th century, religious philosophy was approached in various, often very contradictory ways. Far from all those who at that time "returned" to the religious tradition and tried to build a philosophical worldview on the foundation of the Orthodox faith, were able to follow this path to the end.

The first visible result of the religious movement of the Russian intelligentsia at the beginning of the century is considered to be the Religious-Philosophical Meetings in St. Petersburg (1901-1903). Among the initiators of this peculiar dialogue between the intelligentsia and the Orthodox Church were D. S. Merezhkovsky, D. V. Filosofov, V. V. Rozanov and others. Bishop Sergius (Stragorodsky), later patriarch, presided over the meetings. It was about the possibility of a Christian society, state and culture, about the possibility of the development of the church. The expectations of the intelligentsia were great. Strong were at the beginning of the century and the mood of the apocalyptic. In anticipation of the eschatological finale, they expected, in the literal sense, an ecumenical spiritual rebirth, a new revelation and renewal of church life, a "new religious consciousness." These overly exalted expectations were not justified. "The connection between the church and the world did not take place," Merezhkovsky had to admit. It would be more accurate to say that there was no connection with the church of the "religious" intelligentsia, which, in fact, remained in their original critical positions in relation to the "historical" church. And yet this dialogue had a very definite cultural and historical meaning. G. V. Florovsky wrote about this, who on the whole assessed the meetings quite critically: “Of course, it was not at all the first time that the “historical Church” met the world and culture ... But it was a new meeting, a meeting of the intelligentsia with the Church, after a stormy experience nihilism, renunciation and oblivion. It was... a return to faith... There was an inevitable ambiguity in the plan of the "Assemblies". the meeting took place for which they were conceived.

The religious-philosophical movement received its continuation. In 1905, the Religious and Philosophical Society in Memory of Vl. Solovyov (N. A. Berdyaev, A. Bely, Vyach. I. Ivanov, E. N. Trubetskoy, V. F. Ern, P. A. Florensky, S. N. Bulgakov and others). In 1907, the St. Petersburg Religious and Philosophical Society began its meetings. Religious and philosophical topics were considered on the pages of the New Way magazine, which began to appear in 1903. The religious and metaphysical choice was quite clearly indicated in the collection Problems of Idealism (1902), in which its authors (S. N. Bulgakov, N. A. Berdyaev, S. L. Frank, P. B. Struve, etc.) parting with their own ideological passions of previous years (in particular, with the Marxist past), they predicted a "metaphysical turn" and an "unprecedented flourishing of metaphysics." We can say that another, later and much more famous collection "Milestones" (1909) was not so much philosophical as philosophical in nature. However, its authors - M. O. Gershenzon, N. A. Berdyaev, S. N. Bulgakov, A. S. Izgoev, B. A. Kistyakovsky, P. B. Struve, S. L. Frank - just so understood their task. "Milestones" were supposed to influence the mood of the intelligentsia, offering them new cultural, religious and metaphysical ideals. And of course, the task of criticizing the tradition of Russian radicalism was solved. But it must be borne in mind that it took a long time for the same Berdyaev, Bulgakov, Frank to be able to fully creatively express their religious and philosophical views. In 1910, the philosophical publishing house "The Way" was formed in Moscow, the first edition of which was the collection "About Vladimir Solovyov" (1911). The publishing house "Way" refers to the work of other Russian religious thinkers: the works of I. V. Kireevsky are published, books by Berdyaev about A. S. Khomyakov, V. F. Ern about G. S. Skovoroda and others are published.

Creativity, including philosophical creativity, does not always lend itself to a rigid classification according to directions and schools. This also applies to a significant extent to Russian religious philosophy of the 20th century. Singling out the metaphysics of unity as the leading direction of the latter, we can quite reasonably attribute to this trend the work of such philosophers as E. N. Trubetskoy, P. A. Florensky, S. N. Bulgakov, S. L. Frank, L. P. Karsavin. At the same time, it is necessary to take into account a certain conditionality of such a classification, to see the fundamental differences in the philosophical positions of these thinkers. The religious and philosophical views of N. A. Berdyaev, N. O. Lossky, G. P. Fedotov (with all the differences between them) are close to the traditions of Christian personalism, and the ideas of L. Shestov are close to existential philosophy. In these cases, one should also, first of all, strive to understand the personal originality of the philosophical positions of those who at the beginning of the 20th century choose the path of religious metaphysics. It must be said that during that period, the traditional themes of world and domestic religious thought were developed both in philosophical writings proper and in literary forms. The era of the "Silver Age" of Russian culture is extremely rich in the experience of expressing metaphysical ideas in artistic creativity. A striking example of a kind of "literary" metaphysics can serve as the work of two major figures in the religious and philosophical movement at the turn of the century - D. S. Merezhkovsky and V. V. Rozanov.

in Russia - representatives of the revolution. movements in the 2nd floor. 19th century, ideologists cross. democracy. Revolutionary-Democratic ideology originated in the 1940s. 19th century and became decisive in society. movement in the 60s and 70s. R. d. combined the idea of ​​a cross. revolution with utopian socialism. They considered the peasantry Ch. revolutionary force in the country, believed that Russia after the abolition of serfdom through the cross. revolution, bypassing capitalism, will come through the cross. community towards socialism. In fact, the implementation of the program of R. D. would objectively lead to the development of capitalism, not constrained by the serfs. vestiges. According to the social status of R. d. were Ch. arr. raznochintsy, although there were many nobles among them. One of the first R. d. was V. G. Belinsky. R. d. 50-60s. led by N. G. Chernyshevsky, N. A. Dobrolyubov, A. I. Herzen, N. P. Ogarev, and others carried out their ideas on the pages of Kolokol, published abroad, and Sovremennik. R. D. created secret revolutionaries. org-tion: "Land and Freedom" of the 60s, "Land and Freedom" of the 70s, "Narodnaya Volya" and others (see also Populism). Rus. writers M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, N. A. Nekrasov, G. I. Uspensky, Ukrainian. poet T. G. Shevchenko, arm. the philosopher and publicist M. L. Nalbandyan and others developed and propagated the revolutionary-democratic. ideas. R. D. had an exceptionally fruitful influence on the development of science, literature, and the art of the peoples of Russia. V. I. Lenin called Herzen, Belinsky, Chernyshevsky and a brilliant galaxy of revolutionaries of the 70s. the predecessors of the Russian s.-d. (See Poln. sobr. soch., 5th ed., vol. 6, p. 25 (vol. 5, p. 342)).

In their appearance on the historical arena, the raznochinsk movement put forward remarkable leaders - the great Russian revolutionary democrats N. G. Chernyshevsky (1828-1889) and N. A. Dobrolyubov (1836-1861), who were able to express with great force and depth the aspirations and interests of the working Russian people and exerted a powerful influence on the entire development of advanced social thought and the revolutionary movement. Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov were the successors of the revolutionary-democratic cause of Belinsky, this brilliant predecessor of the raznochintsy democrats. They were also great revolutionary enlighteners. Lenin saw the characteristic features of "enlightenment" in ardent hostility "to serfdom and all its products in the economic, social and legal field", in the ardent defense of "enlightenment, self-government, freedom, European forms of life", and finally in defending "the interests of the masses of the people , mainly peasants ... ". These traits found their most vivid and complete expression in the activities of Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov. They declared a mortal war on the autocratic-feudal regime and all the old way of life connected with it in the name of the good of the many millions of Russian peasants.

The leaders of the revolutionary democracy, the active fighters of the revolutionary movement, understood that only the revolutionary force of the insurgent people could break the fetters of the old feudal serf system, which hindered the development of their beloved homeland. Fighting for the victory of the peasant revolution in Russia, N. G. Chernyshevsky and N. A. Dobrolyubov subordinated all their diverse activities to this great goal. They left their works in philosophy, history, political economy, literary criticism and literary criticism; along with this, they were the authors of outstanding poems (Dobrolyubov) and fiction (Chernyshevsky), filled with the passion of the revolutionary struggle and lofty advanced ideas. They posed and theoretically developed exactly those questions in the field of philosophy, history, political economy, literary criticism and literary criticism, the solution of which raised theoretically social movement Russia to the highest level, questions; the solution of which accelerated and facilitated the preparation of the revolution in Russia. At the same time, they were also outstanding revolutionary conspirators and organizers of the revolutionary movement.

Nikolai Gavrilovich Chernyshevsky belonged to the raznochintsy and came from a spiritual milieu (the son of a priest). In Saratov, where he spent his childhood and the first years of his youth, he could widely observe feudal reality, the cruel oppression of the peasantry, the rudeness and ignorance of the officials, the arbitrariness of the tsarist administration. Studying at the theological seminary aroused in him hatred for the scholastic, dead "science". Chernyshevsky longed to get a university education and devote himself to social activities. He managed to enter St. Petersburg University. Advanced Russian social thought, Belinsky, Herzen and all progressive Russian literature had a strong influence on him. “Gogol and Lermontov seem [to me] inaccessible, great, for whom I am ready to give my life…” wrote student Chernyshevsky. The circle of Petrashevites, with whom the young Chernyshevsky had close ties, also influenced him; together with its participants, Chernyshevsky discussed the issue of the approaching revolution in Russia. Revolutionary events in the West - the revolution of 1848 in France, subsequent revolutionary events in Germany, Austria, Hungary - captured Chernyshevsky's attention; he studied them deeply, following them day by day. The intervention of Nicholas 1 in revolutionary Hungary aroused Chernyshevsky's passionate protest; he called himself a "friend of the Hungarians" and desired the defeat of the tsarist army. The formation of Chernyshevsky's revolutionary outlook proceeded with amazing speed: already in 1848, as a twenty-year-old student, he wrote in his diary that "more and more" was affirmed "in the rules of the socialists"; being a republican by conviction, at the same time he rightly believes that the point is not at all in the word "republic", but "in delivering the lower class from its slavery not before the law, but before the necessity of things" - the whole point is "so that one class does not suck the blood of another." All power must pass into the hands of the lower classes ("farmers-day laborers"). He matures the conviction of the need for active participation in the revolutionary struggle on the side of the insurgent people. “We will soon have a riot, and if there is one, I will certainly participate in it ... Neither dirt, nor drunken men with oak, nor massacre will frighten me ...” After working for some time in Saratov as a teacher and fearlessly devoting lessons to the promotion of revolutionary ideas, Chernyshevsky moved to St. Petersburg, where he devoted himself to literary activity, which provided the greatest opportunities for revolutionary propaganda in the difficult time of Nikolaev. In 1855, Chernyshevsky brilliantly defended his dissertation "The Aesthetic Relations of Art to Reality" in an audience crowded with enthusiastic listeners, where he developed materialistic views and proved that art is an instrument of social struggle and should serve life. The defense of the dissertation aroused the wrath of the reactionary professors. It was a great social event. Chernyshevsky substantiated the doctrine of materialistic aesthetics. His dissertation had the significance of a theoretical manifesto of the raznochinno-democratic movement. Subsequently, Chernyshevsky's activity was concentrated in the Sovremennik magazine, the militant organ of revolutionary democracy. Chernyshevsky was a man of deep and comprehensive knowledge, a great scientist and at the same time a wonderful militant publicist, sensitive to the progressive, new, insightful literary critic, merciless to the supporters of serfdom. He was a flamboyant and extremely idiosyncratic fiction writer: his novel What Is To Be Done? (1863) had a tremendous impact on his contemporaries. Chernyshevsky was a man of steel will, a courageous revolutionary, the inspirer of the most important revolutionary undertakings of his time. But above all, Chernyshevsky is a fiery democratic revolutionary, and each of the aspects of his many-sided activity served a single goal - the preparation of a revolution in Russia, the creation of a revolutionary theory.

To prepare for the revolution, it was important to crush the positions of idealism, which hindered the revolutionary education of revolutionary cadres, and Chernyshevsky made an enormous contribution to the cause of materialist philosophy.

Chernyshevsky's activity as a philosopher represents an important stage in the development of Russian materialistic philosophy. He went forward along the path that had been blazed in Russian classical philosophy in the 1940s by Belinsky and Herzen. Chernyshevsky took into account, critically reworking them, the best achievements of Western European philosophical thought of the pre-Marx period and moved on; he highly valued the materialistic philosophy of Ludwig Feuerbach, but he himself went further than him. True, Chernyshevsky “could not, due to the backwardness of Russian life, rise to the dialectical materialism of Marx and Engels,” however, having not risen to dialectical materialism, he nevertheless, unlike Feuerbach, invariably emphasized the importance of the dialectical method. On the other hand, the great revolutionary democrat resolutely condemned Hegel for the narrowness and conservative nature of his conclusions. Chernyshevsky enthusiastically promoted dialectics and made extensive use of it in his own writings (for example, his dialectical argumentation in Critique of Philosophical Prejudices Against Communal Ownership deserves great attention). Chernyshevsky, like the founders of scientific socialism, remained alien to "religious and ethical layers" in Feuerbach's views. The contemplative character of Feuerbach's materialism was alien to him. Chernyshevsky's philosophy was profoundly effective; all his philosophical creativity, his philosophical propaganda were in the most organic interaction with revolutionary aspirations, reinforced, supported and substantiated the latter.

Until the end of his days, Chernyshevsky remained unshakably faithful to the philosophical principles developed by him in the heyday of his activity. In defense of materialism and a specially materialistic theory of knowledge, he again appeared in print in the 80s, after his return from a long-term exile. Lenin wrote on this occasion: “Chernyshevsky is the only really great Russian writer who managed from the 50s until the 88th year to remain at the level of integral philosophical materialism and to discard the miserable nonsense of neo-Kantians, positivists, Machists and other confusions.”

A consistent materialist in his general philosophical views, Chernyshevsky still remained largely under the influence of idealistic views on the socio-historical process. But his thought developed in the direction of a materialistic understanding of history. Chernyshevsky many times expressed deep materialistic conjectures in explaining historical phenomena. He succeeded with great acuteness and force in revealing the mechanics of class relations and the class struggle. Chernyshevsky's solution of one of the fundamental questions of the science of society, the question of the role of the masses in history, followed from the materialist tendencies of Chernyshevsky's sociological views. “No matter how one argues, only those aspirations are strong, only those institutions are strong that are supported by the masses of the people,” this is the main conclusion, which, being constantly reinforced by concrete examples in Chernyshevsky’s articles, armed the raznochintsy movement in the struggle to prepare for the revolution.

Criticism of bourgeois political economy was extremely important in the course of the revolutionary struggle, as it showed the need to abolish the exploitation of the masses and exposed the apologists for the bourgeois mode of production. Therefore, Chernyshevsky's activity as a scientist-economist was of great importance. In additions and notes to Mill's Foundations of Political Economy (1860-1861), in the article Capital and Labor (1860), and in other works, Chernyshevsky built his political and economic "theory of the working people." Marx, noting the utopian nature of many of Chernyshevsky's propositions, at the same time saw in him the only truly original thinker among contemporary European economists. He spoke of Chernyshevsky as a "great Russian scientist and critic" who masterfully brought to light the bankruptcy of bourgeois political economy. Lenin also pointed out that Chernyshevsky "was a remarkably profound critic of capitalism in spite of his utopian socialism."

The utopian side of Chernyshevsky's views consisted primarily in his assessment of the Russian rural community. He, like Herzen and later the Narodniks, erroneously considered it a means to prevent the proletarianization of the peasantry, a bridge for Russia's transition to socialism. Chernyshevsky, however, was alien to such an idealization of the community, which is characteristic of Herzen. Chernyshevsky emphasized that the community does not constitute a “special inborn feature” of Russia and is a remnant of antiquity that one does not have to be “proud of”, because he only speaks of “the slowness and lethargy of historical development.”

Chernyshevsky attached significant importance to the preservation of the community only on the condition that the peasants were adequately allocated land and that they were actually freed from all fetters of serfdom. He tirelessly and passionately defended the people's right to land and true freedom. This is precisely what constitutes a particularly important feature of his propaganda on the peasant question. Expecting nothing from the noble committees and government commissions preparing the reform, he placed all his hopes on the revolutionary initiative of the masses. “Chernyshevsky,” writes Lenin, “was a utopian socialist who dreamed of the transition to socialism through the old, semi-feudal, peasant community… But Chernyshevsky was not only a utopian socialist. He was also a revolutionary democrat, he knew how to influence all the political events of his era in a revolutionary spirit, passing through the obstacles and slingshots of censorship the idea of ​​a peasant revolution, the idea of ​​the struggle of the masses to overthrow all the old authorities.

Chernyshevsky's orientation toward the people as an active figure in history, who himself must liberate himself from economic and political oppression, Chernyshevsky's conviction that peaceful paths to the liberation of the working people are impossible, his stake on revolution speak of his superiority over the majority of Western utopians with their hopes for good will. the propertied classes and governments. Even in his student years, Chernyshevsky wrote: “I know that without convulsions there is never a single step forward in history. It is foolish to think that mankind can go straight and level when it has never been before.” Such was Chernyshevsky's view of the course of human history in general, such was his view on the path of development of his homeland. Of all the utopian socialists, Chernyshevsky came closest to scientific socialism.

Love for the Russian people and native Russian land inspired Chernyshevsky in all his activities. “The historical significance of every great Russian man,” Chernyshevsky wrote, “is measured by his merits to his homeland, his human dignity by the strength of his patriotism.” Chernyshevsky owns the words: To contribute not to the transient, but to the eternal glory of one's fatherland and the good of mankind - what can be higher and more desirable than this? Chernyshevsky understood patriotism in its true and sublime meaning and content, fully identifying service to the motherland with selfless service to its working people, linking the effective struggle for the victory of the new in one's own fatherland with a living striving for the good of all working people.

Chernyshevsky spoke with indignation about those renegades who renounce their native word, despise their native culture and literature. Proud of the achievements of Russian thought, he pointed out that the progressive people of Russia go "along with the thinkers of Europe, and not in the retinue of their students," that representatives of "our mental movement" do not submit to "any foreign authority." The most honorable place in the construction of national Russian culture belongs to Chernyshevsky himself. Not without reason Lenin, speaking of democratic, advanced Russian culture, characterized it by the names of Chernyshevsky and Plekhanov.

Chernyshevsky naturally and necessarily intertwined love for his homeland, for his people, with hatred for their enemies. He hated serfdom and autocracy, which blocked the Russian people's road to freedom and progress.

Chernyshevsky did not separate the question of the abolition of serfdom from the question of the abolition of the autocratic system. "Everything is nonsense before general character national structure,” wrote Chernyshevsky, referring to the serfdom and the tsarism that headed it.

Carefully studying the political reality of both Russia and Western Europe, Chernyshevsky showed a deep interest in the problem of the state. He saw that the "state policy" of his contemporary era was in fact an expression of the interests of the ruling classes.

Chernyshevsky regarded the absolutist autocratic state as an organ of domination by the nobility. He considered the "representative" form of government of the states of the capitalist countries of the West as an organ of the rule of a new privileged class - the bourgeoisie. Chernyshevsky pointed out that the takhkhoy state provides the people with only formal “freedom” and formal “right”, without providing material opportunities for the use of this freedom and this right. Therefore, Chernyshevsky, although he preferred the political structure of bourgeois European states over the autocracy that dominated Russia, however, being a defender of the interests of the working people, he criticized and denounced not only absolutist, but also bourgeois parliamentary forms state structure, desiring to win, through revolutionary struggle, a system where the “political power”, “education” and “material well-being” of the masses would be realized in an inseparable combination. The peasant revolution in Russia, the overthrow of the autocracy, the transfer of land to the people, the strengthening and improvement of the community, according to Chernyshevsky, should have opened the way to achieving this ideal in his homeland. In a more distant perspective, after a person “completely subjugates external nature”, “remakes everything on earth in accordance with his needs”, after the elimination of “the disproportion between human needs and the means of satisfying them”, Chernyshevsky conceived the disappearance of coercive laws in society, the disappearance states.

In the midst of a revolutionary situation, Chernyshevsky launched an agitation for a revolutionary solution to the peasant question. He strove to enlist in the active support of the cause of the people all those social elements capable of standing on the ground of the struggle for the interests of the masses. At the same time, he tirelessly exposed the cowardice and self-interest of the liberals, who betrayed the interests of the people, sought collusion, deals with tsarism, and sowed harmful monarchist illusions among the intelligentsia. The campaign which Chernyshevsky carried out daily against liberalism was a very important element in his struggle for the ideological preparation of the revolution.

All aspects of Chernyshevsky's multifaceted activities were reflected in his legal articles in Sovremennik, both on the eve of the reform and after it. But Chernyshevsky was not limited to legal journalistic activities. He attached great importance to secret work and the creation of a revolutionary organization, he was going to take advantage of secret printing press in order to directly address the revolutionary appeal to the broad peasant masses. This is confirmed by the actions of Chernyshevek during 1861 and 1862, up to the day of his arrest by the tsarist government. The great writer-thinker was organically combined in Chernyshevsky with a fearless revolutionary leader.

Liberal-bourgeois historiography tried with all its might to present Chernyshevsky as a person who was very far from the revolution, a compromiser of the liberal type (Denisyuk and others). This gross falsification of the appearance of a great revolutionary was based on an obvious juggling of facts, distorted the true knowledge of Chernyshevsky for its class purposes. The first serious research work on Chernyshevsky was the great work of G. V. Plekhanov “N. G. Chernyshevsky”, dedicated to the analysis of his ideology. But the revolutionary-democratic essence of Chernyshevsky's outlook and activity, his unshakable devotion to the idea of ​​a peasant revolution, is obscured in this work. Giving a lot proper lighting general theoretical views of Chernyshevsky, Plekhanov, as Lenin pointed out, “because of the theoretical difference between the idealist] and materialist] views on history ... overlooked

Practically to the political and class difference between the liberal and the democrat! M.N. Pokrovsky also discovered a complete misunderstanding of the real political meaning of Chernyshevsky’s activities when he called him “the founder of the Menshevik tactics”, who allegedly called for maintaining calm and gradually, “slowly and gently”, relying on the “educated classes”, to seek concessions from the tsar. This false assessment distorted the image of a brilliant writer, one of the best representatives of the Russian people, who devoted all their energies to the preparation of a democratic revolution. Later, other erroneous concepts were put forward in historiography, for example, the incorrect opinion was expressed that Chernyshevsky was allegedly the founder of Marxism in Russia; the general appearance of Chernyshevsky was drawn as the appearance of a Bolshevik. The great revolutionary democrat needs no embellishment of this kind; such conceptions are ahistorical and devoid of scientific foundation.

A comrade and associate, a student and like-minded person of Chernyshevsky, the great revolutionary democrat Dobrolyubov entered literature three years later than him (Chernyshevsky's first works were published in 1853, Dobrolyubov's in 1856). From his youth, Dobrolyubov was absorbed in the thought of the great future of Russia, for which he strove to "work tirelessly, disinterestedly and fervently." The ardent patriot Dobrolyubov wrote that “in a decent person, patriotism is nothing more than a desire to work for the benefit of one’s country, and comes from nothing else but the desire to do good, as much as possible and as much as possible better.”

Dobrolyubov associated the future greatness of his native country with the revolution, democracy and socialism. While still a student, Dobrolyubov published in 1855 the underground handwritten newspaper Rumors, where he expressed the conviction that “it is necessary to break the rotten building of the current administration”, and for this it is necessary to act on the “lower class of the people”, “open his eyes to the present state of affairs ", to excite his dormant forces, to instill in him the concept of the dignity of man, of "true good and evil." Dobrolyubov remained invariably faithful to this view throughout his short, but unusually bright and fruitful activity as a democratic revolutionary, publicist, philosopher, critic, head of the critical department in the Sovremennik magazine.

Dobrolyubov, like Chernyshevsky, hated serfdom and autocracy with all his heart, was an enemy of the oppressors of the working people, a supporter of socialism. He proclaimed the struggle for "man and his happiness" as the guiding principle of his activity. Recognizing, together with Chernyshevsky, the superiority of the socio-political structure of the more advanced capitalist countries over the autocracy, Dobrolyubov, like him, was alien to any idealization of the bourgeois order. He pointed to the discontent brewing in the West in the "working classes", and emphasized that "the proletarian understands his position much better than many fine-hearted scientists who rely on the generosity of older brothers in relation to the smaller." Thus, Dobrolyubov, although not freed from the influence of utopian socialism, did not believe in the possibility of inducing the ruling classes to voluntarily go towards the working masses. He expected the solution of the "social question" both in the West and in Russia from the awakening of consciousness and activity in the struggle of the masses themselves. “Modern confusion cannot be resolved otherwise than by the original influence of people's life,” he wrote at the beginning of 1860. By such “influence” he meant a popular uprising, a peasant revolution in Russia.

Dobrolyubov was an irreconcilable opponent of the liberals, he sharply exposed them for their inability to take on a serious public cause, for supporting the tsarist government, and revealed the extreme narrowness and limitations of their reformist plans. Dobrolyubov opposed the people to the liberal society with its "ringing phrases", scanty, "almost obscene" claims for reforms. “Among the masses of our people,” he said, “there is efficiency, seriousness, there is a capacity for sacrifice ... The masses of the people do not know how to speak eloquently. Their word is never idle; it is said by them as a call to action.” Exposing the liberal manilovs, people of phrase, supporters of a compromise with the monarchy and serfdom at the expense of the people, Dobrolyubov put forward his positive ideal - the ideal of a revolutionary who does not know the discord between word and deed, embraced by one idea of ​​​​struggle for the happiness of the people, ready "or to bring triumph to this idea, or die."

In all his articles, written even on purely literary topics, Dobrolyubov acted as an ardent and courageous political fighter. He knew how to use them to denounce the feudal system and propagate his revolutionary democratic views. His famous articles “Dark Kingdom”, “What is Oblomovism?”, “When will the real day come?” - examples of brilliant literary critical analysis and, at the same time, remarkable works of revolutionary journalism.

Dobrolyubov is a writer who "passionately hated arbitrariness and passionately awaited a popular uprising against the "internal Turks" - against the autocratic government."

Chernyshevsky called Dobrolyubov the best defender of the interests of the Russian people.

Dobrolyubov, like Chernyshevsky, was highly valued by Marx and Engels. Marx put Dobrolyubov on a par with Lessing and Diderot, Engels called Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov "two socialist Lessings."

Scientists-fighters, scientists-revolutionaries, who rallied around themselves like-minded people who worked in the name of the great task of preparing the revolution - this is who N. G. Chernyshevsky and N. A. Dobrolyubov first of all appear before us.

The activities of the revolutionary democrats were of tremendous historical significance - they were the direct forerunners of social democracy in Russia. They sought to develop a revolutionary theory. V. I. Lenin emphasized that Russia suffered Marxism at the cost of half a century of passionate search for revolutionary theory. In this quest, the revolutionary democrats were the forerunners of Russian social democracy.

The revolutionary democrats considered the people the creator of history, the main driving force of historical development. They were the first to turn with a revolutionary sermon to the people, and such an appeal does not disappear, even if whole decades separate the sowing from the harvest.

The revolutionary democrats gave a merciless criticism of tsarism, serfdom and liberalism, which retained its significance for many years. In this, too, they were the forerunners of social democracy, in contrast to the Narodniks, who themselves slipped into liberalism.

Entire generations of revolutionaries were brought up on the works of revolutionary democrats. V. I. Lenin emphasized that his revolutionary outlook was formed under the influence of these works.

The ideological legacy of the revolutionary democrats was of tremendous importance for the education of subsequent generations of revolutionaries in other countries as well. Thus, G. Dimitrov said that Chernyshevsky's novel "What Is to Be Done?" played an enormous role in shaping his revolutionary views. Rakhmetov was for him a model of a revolutionary.

The revolutionary democrats were also the forerunners of the Social Democracy in deeply patriotic, selfless service to their people, in the struggle for their revolutionary liberation.

The Sovremennik magazine is the ideological center of revolutionary democracy. The ideological center of revolutionary democracy was the Sovremennik magazine, the best and most popular magazine of the era. The editor of the magazine was the great poet of Russian revolutionary democracy - N. A. Nekrasov, an active participant in the revolutionary struggle of those years.

The revolutionary democrats, headed by Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov, made the journal a propaganda organ for revolutionary democratic ideas. "Sovremennik" at the time of the leadership of Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov played an absolutely exceptional role in the life of advanced Russian society, especially the youth of Raznochinsk. He enjoyed, according to the true testimony of N. Mikhailovsky, such a prestige, "which had not been equal before in the entire history of Russian journalism."

"The mighty sermon of Chernyshevsky, who knew how to educate real revolutionaries with censored articles," sounded from the pages of Sovremennik.

Understanding all the narrowness, all the squalor and the feudal nature of the peasant reform being prepared, the editors of Sovremennik, headed by Chernyshevsky, tirelessly exposed the tsarist reform and defended the interests of the oppressed peasantry.

At the same time, Chernyshevsky deeply understood the class nature of liberalism and mercilessly exposed in the pages of Sovremennik the line of betrayals of liberalism.

A group of like-minded people close-knit around Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov, consisting of M. L. Mikhailov, N. V. Shelgunov, N. A. Serno-Solovyevich, V. A. Obruchev, M. A. Antonovich, G. Z. Eliseev, and others. in her articles published in Sovremennik, she also promoted the idea of ​​preparing a peasant revolution, developed serious theoretical questions, and covered lively, topical topics put forward by Russian life.

Sovremennik, as the ideological center of revolutionary democracy, played an enormous role in the organizational rallying of the revolutionary forces. It was from this ideological center that the threads stretched to other advanced journals, to circles of "Chernyshevites" in the student and military environment, to underground youth organizations, to the "Bell" of Herzen and Ogaryov. It was precisely around Sovremennik that the galaxy of associates of Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov gathered, which was the core of the “party” of revolutionaries of 1861 that was being created in the era of the revolutionary situation.

The political views of the Russian revolutionary democrats are represented by the names of the already familiar representatives of Russian Westernism A.I. Herzen and V.G. Belinsky, as well as N.P. Ogarev, N.G. Chernyshevsky, N.A. Dobrolyubov.

The socio-political orientation of their views is expressed in their numerous statements about the need for a democratic reorganization of the Russian social and state system in a revolutionary way. This was the essence of their revolutionary democracy.

They were convinced of the inevitability of the progressive development of society, during which its obsolete forms would be replaced by new ones that would meet the interests of the broad masses of the people. In particular, Belinsky considered it an urgent need to destroy the patriarchal way of life in Russia and the autocracy that still persists. This idea of ​​his was supported by Herzen and Ogarev, who noted that serfdom was abolished only formally, that "there are no personal rights for peasants who have emerged from serfdom."

According to N.P. Ogarev, a number of transformations should have followed from the abolition of serfdom, first of all: the liberation of the peasants and their acquisition of a real right to land; abolition of landownership and different kind"people's institutions"; reforms in the field of judiciary; all-class election of the court and management. None of this was done. The question of the democratization of the socio-economic and political system of Russia was still acute.

AI Herzen pointed to the more progressive nature of the capitalist system compared to the feudal system, but did not consider it an ideal. In his writings, he noted that in bourgeois society, as in feudal society, there is no social equality. First of all, it does not exist in the relations between the bourgeoisie and wage-workers, "the master and the worker." It does not exist in political relations between them either, because the bourgeoisie is "the only class that has political rights." He characterized the established formal equality before the law under capitalism as an "optical illusion" that hides the actual inequality of the various strata of the population.

A.I. Herzen and N.P. Ogarev pointed to the following main “elements” of the transformation of Russian society: the right of peasants to land, the elimination of estates, the abolition of the institution of appointed officials and the “organization of management by elected officials”. All this corresponded to their ideas about the principles of true democracy, implemented in the field of public life.

Their views were further developed in the works of N.G. Chernyshevsky and N.A. Dobrolyubov. Like their predecessors, these revolutionary democrats solved the problems of the political life of Russian society, relying on the experience of not only Russia, but also the countries of Western Europe. Thus, Chernyshevsky positively assessed the demands put forward by the democratic forces of England in the middle of the 19th century. These demands concerned the democratization of elections to the English Parliament and its activities and boiled down to the following: universal suffrage; annual parliamentary elections; elections by secret ballot to ensure the independence of voters; the abolition of the property qualification for candidates for parliamentary deputies, "so that the nation may elect its deputies without distinction between rich and poor." According to Chernyshevsky, the implementation of such requirements under certain conditions could become part of the democratic transformation of the political life of Russian society.

All Russian revolutionary democrats proceeded from the fact that the democratization of the political life of society should lead to the social and political liberation of the individual, the expansion of his civil rights and freedoms, and the creation of conditions for his spiritual development.

An important place in the teachings of revolutionary democrats is given to the problems of dividing society into various social strata and classes and the social class struggle. According to Belinsky, the bourgeoisie at the beginning of its social ascent did not separate its interests from the interests of the people. When it turned "from fighting to triumphant," it forgot about the people and their interests. To protect its own interests, it uses the power of the state up to the violent suppression of the people.

N.G. Chernyshevsky pointed to the economic basis for the dismemberment of society, he considered the methods of obtaining income and their sources as such. "In terms of benefits, the entire European society is divided into two halves: one lives on the labor of others, the other on its own." Hence the opposite of their social interests. One of them is interested in maintaining existing relations, in which it can appropriate someone else's labor, the interests of the other are to change the existing situation so that "the working person enjoys all the fruits of his labor."

Chernyshevsky sharply criticized the reformist tactics of the liberals, who, in his opinion, covered up their desire to preserve the old regime with false declamations about progress, freedom, and the welfare of the people. He recognized only such reforms that are based on the expansion of freedom or lead to it. First of all, we are talking about political freedoms and the rights of people regarding the right to vote, the freedom of their political activity, as well as the freedom to receive education, thanks to which the possibilities of social life of the individual expand in all spheres of society, including political.

N.A. Dobrolyubov believed that for the revolutionary transformation of society based on the principles of democracy, it is necessary, among other things, to broadly educate the people, educate them on progressive moral and political values, and unite on the basis of common interests.

The revolutionary democrats proceeded from the fact that the transformation of the social and state system in Russia could take place as a result of the revolutionary actions of the broad masses of the people. And this does not preclude the use of revolutionary violence. Chernyshevsky put forward the idea of ​​a people's revolution, which could take place "out of existing public relations and will be aimed at changing the state system in the interests of the working masses.

The main goal of the people's revolution is socialism. The path to socialism was seen by many revolutionary democrats through the commune. This idea found a comprehensive substantiation in Herzen's doctrine of Russian socialism. The community seemed to him economic and social basis the socialist way of life of people, their collective solution of common issues, as well as the basis for the development of self-government. At the same time, it was assumed that each member of the community should have a certain independence and freedom in solving their family and personal problems. Economically, such independence was enshrined in the right of every peasant to his own plot of land, which guaranteed him a reliable source of livelihood and economic independence. As a result, the community could become such a form of social hostel, within which the best way personal and communal interests of people would interact.

At the same time, Herzen constantly emphasized that the national characteristics of the development of the Russian people should not isolate them from the process of development of world civilization. He pointed to the need for creative use of the experience of Western Europe and modern science. For Herzen, individual freedom appears as the main goal of communal socialism, and science and communal self-government as essential funds her achievements. Thus, in Herzen's doctrine of Russian socialism, the national characteristics of Russia's development and the values ​​of world civilization were organically combined.

N.G. Chernyshevsky adhered to more radical views. He called for the establishment of a republican system in Russia, although in some statements he agreed with the possibility of establishing a constitutional monarchy. At the same time, he pointed out that the tsar should take into account the interests of the people, proceed from them, and the people should have the right to remove the objectionable tsar and elect a new one. Parting with such views over time, Chernyshevsky came to the conclusion that the people's revolution, to which he called, should lead to people's rule. He considered the socialist society the most progressive, and the democratic republic the best form of government, in which, in his opinion, the fullness of civil and political rights and freedoms for every person could be ensured.

The revolutionary democrats were ideologists, defenders of the interests of the oppressed serfs and other sections of the working people. They fought for the abolition of the autocracy and serfdom, and sharply castigated the landlord-bourgeois liberals. Thinkers preached the ideas of utopian peasant socialism, which was supposed to "grow" after the revolutionary transformations from peasant communities and "workers' artels". They stood on the positions of philosophical materialism, developed the atheistic and dialectical traditions in Russia, and advocated an alliance between materialist philosophy and advanced natural science, progressive art, and the revolutionary movement.

Vissarion Grigoryevich Belinsky criticized serfdom, liberals, denounced the power of capital in the West, approved the revolutionary actions of the proletarians in Europe. As a dialectician, Belinsky highly valued the idea of ​​progressive development through the negation of the old by the new. Belinsky's dialectic served revolutionary democracy in its struggle against the absolutist-feudal order in Russia. Having experienced the influence of the views of L. Feuerbach, he opposed idealistic and metaphysical abstractions, called for studying life in all its diverse features, forms and manifestations and fearlessly intruding into it. Belinsky declares the Hegelian absolute idea a "bloodthirsty Moloch", to whom the fate of the individual and entire nations is sacrificed. The thinker stood for the freedom of the individual, its comprehensive intellectual and physical development. He put the liberation of the individual in direct dependence on the conquest of freedom and the establishment of a truly democratic order of society. V. G. Belinsky did not deny the importance of outstanding personalities in history, but he declared the people to be the main engine of socio-historical progress, the main driving force in the cause of fundamental social transformations. Belinsky believed in the sound mind of the people, in their creative powers. At the same time, the thinker expressed a deep conjecture about the role of "material needs" and "material needs" in the development of human society, declaring them a great lever of moral activity. If a person did not need food, clothing, housing, and the comforts of life, he would forever remain in an animal state. Belinsky persistently pursued the idea of ​​the continuous and endless development and improvement of mankind. In his opinion, the development of society does not take place in a straight line, but in a spiral, from lower and primitive forms to more complex and rich in content, character, direction and significance. The spiritual life of man, the activity of the human mind is the product of organic matter at the highest phase of its development. The source of knowledge is in feelings.

Belinsky's outstanding merit was a new formulation of the question of art and its social significance, of literature and its role in public life. He criticizes the theory of "pure art", arguing that art expresses the spiritual life of the people of a certain historical period, their needs, hopes and aspirations. Proceeding from the fact that "life is always higher than art", Belinsky saw in it a reflection of life itself. Art, like life, is subject to constant development, improvement, which have no boundaries. And, although beauty is one of the necessary conditions of art, the main thing in it is topicality. The art form should carry advanced ideas, be socially and emotionally saturated. The development of art is determined by the era, its social and political contradictions (art is an encyclopedia of life). The highest criterion of a work of art is its nationality, national identity and universal humanity. An artist must feel his civic duty and responsibility to humanity.

Outstanding preachers of revolutionary democratic ideas and the socialist renewal of Russia were A. I. Herzen and N. P. Ogarev. They believed that the emancipation of the peasants should be carried out in accordance with three principles; the right of everyone to the land, communal ownership of it, worldly management. The predatory nature of the peasant reform of 1861, the wave of peasant uprisings in the country, and the brutal reprisal of tsarism and landlords over the rebellious people helped Herzen and Ogarev to be convinced of the need for a revolution in Russia. Having established contact with Chernyshevsky, they took an active part in the formation of the illegal revolutionary organization "Land and Freedom". The main political demands of this group were: land, freedom and education for the people. Considering that only the people themselves can achieve this, they called on the people to revolt. Having lost hope that socialism could grow out of revolutions in the West, Herzen and Ogarev turn their attention to the peasant community. In it they see the germs of the future peasant socialism.

Developing the materialist tradition in Russia, A. I. Herzen and N. P. Ogarev sought to combine philosophy with socialism. Herzen criticized the idealists, believing that science should be based on nature. And philosophy must have practical application. He interpreted truth as a process of ascent from incomplete knowledge to more and more complete (from phenomenon to essence, from form to content). Nature precedes man, who appears as a result of the development of organic matter. Not logical development ideas precede the real development of nature, but, on the contrary, the logical is unthinkable without nature and before nature . Thinkers considered the source of knowledge to be experience, feelings, further processed by the mind. They defended the unity of philosophy and natural science. Philosophy, in their opinion, without natural science will become bogged down in bare abstractions, natural science without philosophy is lost in facts, turns into descriptive morphology. Herzen and Ogarev valued dialectics. Nature was seen by them as an eternal process of renewal and development. But development is not a smooth and painless process; it is accomplished through the struggle of opposing principles. In dialectics, Herzen and Ogarev saw "the algebra of revolution", designed to combine philosophy with socialism.

Nikolai Gavrilovich Chernyshevsky also defended materialism in philosophy. His works The Aesthetic Relations of Art to Reality, Essays on the Gogol Period of Russian Literature, Criticism of Philosophical Prejudices Against Communal Ownership, Anthropological Principle in Philosophy, and The Character of Human Knowledge developed the materialist and dialectical traditions in Russian philosophy. Chernyshevsky came to the conclusion that not only in politics, but also in philosophy, sociology, political economy, aesthetics, there is a sharp struggle between different trends, parties, and that the thinker's belonging to one party or another that is fighting in society leaves an imprint on his works, finds in them a reflection. He himself consciously placed his philosophy at the service of revolutionary democracy. Chernyshevsky believed that philosophy is called upon to solve common problems science, spirit and matter, about the freedom of the human will, about the immortality or mortality of the soul. According to the thinker, nature exists independently of consciousness and before it. He summed up the whole variety of forms in the physical world under the concept of matter. He believed that objects in the world are in constant interaction, the main forms of the existence of matter are space and time. Matter and motion are indestructible. Matter only passes from one state to another, but the amount of matter and motion do not change. Based on the data of the natural sciences, Chernyshevsky developed the idea of ​​“the unity of the human body, tried to materialistically explain the origin of consciousness from sensation through its complication and development. He considered experience and feelings to be the source of knowledge. Man is able to know the world, to discover new phenomena in it, to penetrate the secrets of objects. The thinker used the anthropological principle to criticize idealism and religion, to protect the common man, his freedom and interests. He defended the concreteness of truth, tried to define its criteria in the practice of human life. The thinker considered Hegel's dialectics the most important achievement of philosophical science, a sharp weapon in the fight against reaction and stagnation, but at the same time, he criticized Hegel for conservatism. For him, dialectics served to theoretically substantiate the need for class struggle, popular revolution, the implementation of socialist ideals and historical progress in general. Chernyshevsky interprets development as self-development (the transformation of physical processes into chemical ones, quantitative changes into qualitative ones, the evolution of life, etc.). As for social development, Chernyshevsky believed that it does not proceed smoothly, but through a sharp struggle between the rich and the poor, i.e. through class struggle.

In aesthetics, he continued the views of Belinsky. Chernyshevsky believed that art arises not only from aesthetic needs, but also from social demands, it is brought to life by historical conditions. The recognition of reality as the original beginning of art is the cornerstone of Chernyshevsky's materialistic aesthetics. The task of the artist is the truthful reproduction of the features and tendencies of life (the reproduction of typical features in typical images), which has the goal of rebuilding reality on a more reasonable basis for the perceiver of a work of art. Art is called upon to explain life, to bring progressive ideas to the people, to educate the people in the spirit of humane ideals, to fight reactionary ideas. It, according to Chernyshevsky, should also pass the verdict of life, be deeply ideological. Art covers all aspects of life, everything that is of interest to a person; it reproduces and reflects his thoughts and aspirations, joys and sorrows, shows the diverse aspects of the life of society, social ailments and illnesses, as well as the means and ways of getting rid of them. Art, according to the thinker, is reality, grasped and reflected artistic means, it draws beauty from reality itself. Therefore, “beautiful is life”, life is always higher than art, it is its source, its main support. The beautiful is generated by reality, and if it were not in it, then the idea of ​​the beautiful could not appear in art. Beautiful life, imbued with noble impulses and transformed in accordance with the interests of the people. The principles of the new ethics, the "ethics of rational egoism", combining the interests of the individual and society, rejecting egocentrism, parasitism, idleness, the enslavement of man by man, Chernyshevsky outlines in the novel What Is To Be Done? He set himself the task of educating a new man, a revolutionary and humanist, with high moral ideals ready for sacrifice and heroism.

Chernyshevsky believed that despite any obstacles, zigzags and retreats, society is still moving forward. Public life, the thinker believed, develops according to its own laws, and there are no chosen peoples. The driving force of history is the class struggle and economic development. The people are the main force historical process, the arbiter of the fate of his homeland. Outstanding personalities are born of historical necessity. Recognizing the role of the geographical environment, he believed that development and labor smoothed out its influence. An outstanding role, in his opinion, is played by revolutions in the development of history.

Nikolai Aleksandrovich Dobrolyubov was an ideological ally of Chernyshevsky. He saw autocracy, serfdom and liberalism as the main enemies of the liberation struggle. In the article "Organic development of man in connection with his mental and moral activity", the thinker criticized the idealistic and vulgar-materialistic interpretations of man and his consciousness. Dobrolyubov considered a person as a single organism in which the bodily gives rise to the spiritual, the brain is the material basis of consciousness. Objective laws operate in the natural environment. A person does not change them, but, opening them, uses them in his activity. Movement, space, time are inseparable from matter. The mental activity of people has as its source the objective world and feelings. But the latter only then turned into concepts and ideas when the brain functions normally. Thought without an object, an object is impossible. The categories of logic have their basis in the objects of the surrounding reality, they express the real processes of life. Like Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov believes that objective laws operate in society, and the driving force behind the historical process is the class struggle and the actions of the masses. He compared outstanding personalities with a spark that can explode gunpowder, but cannot ignite a stone. Dobrolyubov recognized the progressive significance of the change of the serf system by capitalist, he did not feel in relation to last illusions, believing that it should be replaced by a more progressive, socialist one.

The works of Dobrolyubov are imbued with the spirit of the struggle for realism and nationality, the high ideological content of art. Following Chernyshevsky, he believed that art is generated by life itself, it is not an end in itself, but a conductor of advanced ideas and theories, a defender of science and progress. The measure of artistic talent, in his opinion, is: the truth of life in the work of the artist, realism; the breadth of his coverage of life, the significance of his artistic images; the depth of the writer's penetration into the essence of the phenomenon depicted, the brightness of the artistic image, causing the reader's approval or anger, igniting him with new ideas. An artist, in order to fulfill his destiny, must have not only talent, but also the ability to philosophically comprehend what is happening, to separate the main from the secondary, the essential from the unimportant.

Pisarev, Shelgunov, Antonovich also belonged to the number of outstanding representatives of the revolutionary-democratic camp. Revolutionary-democratic ideas, clothed in a veiled, allegorical form, Pisarev expounded in the censored articles of the Russian Word. He considered people's revolutions legitimate and inevitable, decisive for the outcome of the struggle. social groups in society. Pisarev declared labor an absolute condition of life, a necessary prerequisite for the happiness of people, a source of material well-being and spiritual wealth. Thinkers shared the socialist ideas outlined by Chernyshevsky in the novel What Is To Be Done?, believing that a bright future will come not only for the heroes, but also for ordinary people. Shelgunov, under the influence of the views of Engels, pays more and more attention to the labor issue in Russia. Pisarev, Shelgunov, Antonovich were consistent materialists. Pisarev pointed to the presence of two struggling camps in philosophy - idealists and materialists. He saw the reason for the emergence of idealism in the separation of fantasy from reality. Chernyshevsky's followers recognized not only the primordial existence of nature and its laws, but also the possibility of their knowledge. They defended the unity of the world, believing that it is based on a single material substance, continuously developing from the lowest to the highest and reaching the level of intelligent life. A large place in the work of Pisarev and Antonovich is given to the defense and promotion of Charles Darwin's ideas.