Эволюция российской государственности в контексте формационных взглядов на структуру мировой истории

Roman V. Svetlov; Alexander A. Fedorov

doi:10.21638/spbu17.2023.105

Authors

Roman V. Svetlov Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University, 14, ul. Aleksandra Nevskogo, Kaliningrad, 236041, Russian Federation
Alexander A. Fedorov Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University, 14, ul. Aleksandra Nevskogo, Kaliningrad, 236041, Russian Federation

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu17.2023.105

Abstract

The approach to history in general and the history of Russia in particular, which points to the presence of the necessary historical stages, is primarily associated with various trends in Marxism. In the case of the last centuries of Russian history, the most important point is the question of the nature of the 1917 Revolution. More generally, it is a question of the extent to which Marxist theory is able to substantiate the possibility of a “jump” through historical steps. We have chosen two Marxists from different periods as an example the attitude to the topic. The first example is G.V.Plekhanov, an outstanding Russian theorist and polemist. His reaction to the revolutionary events was twofold. The February Revolution of 1917 fully met his aspirations both in the medium term (the overthrow of “tsarism” and the continuation of the struggle against Germany) and in the long term (creation in Russia of prerequisites for economic development, and, therefore, a socialist revolution). On the contrary, the October Revolution was regarded by him as a tragic mistake. Another position on the October Revolution was expressed by a modern proponent of the formational approach, the Japanese philosopher Kajio Karatani. He significantly changed the understanding of how the social development of mankind takes place. The most important reason for historical change is the relationship of the three modes of economic exchange, which dictate those types of state system that are relevant in different historical eras. Karatani believes that the Russian Revolution was the reaction of an imperial-type state to pressure from national states. The idea of class reorganization, on which the teachings of the Bolsheviks were based, allowed the imperial, supranational structure of Russia to survive. After the Civil War it received the supranational name of the Soviet Union.

Keywords:

Modern Marxism, G.Plekhanov, K.Karatani, philosophy of history, empire and nation

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Литература

Светлов, Р.В. (2021), Цивилизационные модели описания Российской империи в отечественной и западной философии истории, Вестник Русской христианской гуманитарной академии, т. 22, № 4-1, с. 272–283.

фПлеханов, Г.В. (Бельтов, Н.) (1949), К вопросу о развитии монистического взгляда на историю, М.: Государственное издательство политической литературы.

Шуб, Д.Н. (1969), Политические деятели России (1850–1920-х гг.): сборник статей, Нью-Йорк: Издание «Нового журнала».

Каутский, К. (1917), Национальное государство, империалистическое государство, союз государств, М.

Котельников, М.Е. (2005), Социалистическая перспектива в концепции Каутского, Философия и общество, № 2 (39), c. 60–79.

Плеханов, Г.В. (1917), Война и мир, Пг.: Издательство Марии Малых.

Костяев, Э.В. (2014), Являлся ли Г.В.Плеханов сторонником царизма в годы первой мировой войны? Вестник СГТУ, № 1 (74), с. 131–136.

Савинченко, Т.И. и Соколов, М.В. (2017), Г.В.Плеханов и Первая мировая война, Вестник Екатерининского института, № 3 (39), с. 79–83.

Popper, K. (1957), The poverty of historicism, Boston: Beacon Press.

Karatani, K. (2014), The Structure of World History: From Modes of Production to Modes of Exchange, Durham: Duke University Press.

Karatani, K. (2003), Transcritique: On Kant and Marx, Cambridge: MIT Press.

Каратани, К. (2012), Революция и повторение,Логос, № 2 (86), с. 114–133.

Ouahes, I. (2015), The structure of world history: from modes of production to modes of exchange. Rethinking History, The Journal of Theory and Practice, vol. 19, iss. 1, pp. 141–144.

Тойнби, А.Дж. (2010), Постижение истории, М.: Айрис Пресс.

References

Svetlov, R. (2021), Civilizational models of the description of the Russian Empire in Russian and Western philosophy of history, Vestnik Russkoi khristianskoi gumanitarnoi akademii, vol. 22, no. 4-1, pp. 272–283. (In Russian)

Plekhanov, G. (1949), On the question of the development of a monistic view of history, Мoscow: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel’stvo politicheskoi literatury Publ. (In Russian)

Tshub, D. (1969), Politicians of Russia (1850s–1920s), New York: Izdanie “Novogo zhurnala” Publ. (In Russian)

Kautsky, K. (1917), Nation state, imperialist state, union of states, Мoscow. (In Russian)

Kotel’nikov, М. (2005), Socialist perspective in the concept of Kautsky, Filosofiia i obshchestvo, no. 2 (39), pp. 60–79. (In Russian)

Plehanov, G. (1917), War and peace, Petrograd: Izdatel’stvo Marii Malykh Publ. (In Russian)

Kostiaev, K. (2014), Was G.V.Plekhanov a supporter of tsarism during the First World War? Vestnik SGTU, no. 1 (74), pp. 131–136. (In Russian)

Savinchenko, Т. and Sokolov, M. (2017), G.Plekhanov and the First World War, Vestnik Ekaterininskogo instituta, no. 3 (39), p. 79–83. (In Russian)

Popper, K. (1957), The poverty of historicism, Boston: Beacon Press.

Karatani, K. (2014), The Structure of World History: From Modes of Production to Modes of Exchange, Durham: Duke University Press.

Karatani, K. (2003), Transcritique: On Kant and Marx, Cambridge: MIT Press.

Karatani, K. (2012), Revolution and repetition, Logos, no. 2 (86), pp. 114–133. (In Russian)

Ouahes, I. (2015), The structure of world history: from modes of production to modes of exchange. Rethinking History, The Journal of Theory and Practice, vol. 19, iss. 1, pp. 141–144.

Toynbee, А. (2010), A Study of History, Мoscow: Airis Press Publ. (In Russian)