Moscow, Mysl Publishing House. 1976. 184 p. Circulation of 5000 copies. Price 1 rub. 4 kopecks.

Coverage of the problems of the revolutionary liberation movement in Russia at the beginning of the XX century. and especially the three Russian revolutions plays an important role in the modern ideological struggle. In bourgeois historiography, these problems are interpreted from subjectivist positions, reflecting a general rejection of the laws of the historical process, hostility to the prospect of a revolutionary reorganization of society, and often undisguised anti-communism and anti-Sovietism.

Soviet historians are consistently fighting against the bourgeois concepts of the three revolutions in Russia. A number of books and a large number of articles are devoted to the critical analysis of Western literature on the history of February and October. Works containing criticism of the bourgeois historiography of the first Russian Revolution, up to the very last time, were significantly less than 1 . Meanwhile, this problem, although it has received less extensive coverage in the Western literature than the events of 1917, is by no means a peripheral one. Some bourgeois authors draw a straight line from 1905 to 1917. "At the end of the first Russian Revolution," writes the West German historian A. Fischer, "conditions were created for development, which almost twelve years later prompted representatives of the moderate wing of the Social Democrats to join the coalition bourgeois government in May 1917, and a few months later, during Red October, led to the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks." 2 Bourgeois literature emphasizes that studying the first Russian revolution is necessary for a clearer understanding of the processes currently taking place in developing countries. 3 Bourgeois ideologists see the anti-Marxist concepts of the first Russian revolution as a means of combating the influence of the USSR in the "third world" .4 That's why the book of candidates is published

1 A series of works analyzing the bourgeois historiography of the revolution of 1905-1907 was published in 1975. Among them are articles by: N. V. Romanovsky, A. L. Ugryumo V. The Revolution of 1905-1907: Some Questions of History and modern bourgeois Falsifiers. "Questions of the history of the CPSU", 1975, N 7; V. I. Salov. Modern bourgeois historiography of the three Russian Revolutions. Bulletin of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1975, No. 11.

2 A. Fischer. Russische Sozialdemokratie und bewaffneter Aufstand im Jahre 1905. Wiesbaden. 1967, S. 183.

3 H. D. Mehlinger, J. M. Thompson. Count Witte and the Tsaris Government in the 1905 Revolution. Bloomington. 1972, pp. 3 - 4; I. Spector. The First Russian Revolution. Its Impact on Asia. Englewood Cliffs. 1962, p. 113.

4 I. Spector. Op. cit., p. VIII.

page 164

of the Institute of History of the USSR of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR P. N. Zyryanov and V. V. Shelokhaev is very important. It fills one of the gaps in the criticism of bourgeois historiography.

In the field of view of the authors-the interpretation of American and English bourgeois historians of such issues as the class structure and policy of the autocracy in Russia in the early XX century, the revolutionary movement of the Russian proletariat, the peasant movement, the policy and ideology of Russian liberalism, the actions of tsarism aimed at suppressing the revolution and preventing it in the future. Of particular importance from the point of view of ideological struggle is the authors ' demonstration of the failure to cover in bourgeois historiography the problems of spontaneity and consciousness in the working - class movement; the correlation of economic and political forms of struggle of the working class; the alliance of the working class and the peasantry; the social nature of the liberals and their political position in 1905-1907; Stolypin's agrarian reform.

The book meets the increased demands for a critique of bourgeois concepts in the current context of the ideological struggle, and above all the demand for a deeper analysis and a more differentiated approach to anti-Marxist theories .5 The authors did not lose sight (as, unfortunately, is still sometimes the case) of any more or less notable works on the issues under study published in the United States and England, and the literature under consideration was carefully analyzed from the point of view of its correspondence (or, conversely, inconsistency) with the most common theories of Western historiography, as well as its relevance. ideological and political origins.

It is impossible to disagree with the authors ' conclusion that since the late 1950s, new trends and concepts of socio-political and socio - economic processes that took place in Russia in the late XIX - early XX centuries have been emerging in the Bourgeois historiography, as a result of which the traditional ideas of Western authors about "Westernization"have changed Russia or, conversely ,the "exclusivity" of its historical path (pp. 8-9). The interpretation of the rapid economic development of Russia in the era of imperialism, the role of the state and the political institutions of the autocracy became increasingly influenced by the theories of "modernization" and "growth stages", designed to explain the course of world history from the standpoint of bourgeois social studies. The book correctly notes that in the 1960s the theory of "Westernization" gave way to the concept of "revolution from outside" and various versions of the theory of "modernization", as a result of which the schemes proposed by one of the patriarchs of American Russian studies, G. Vernadsky, lost popularity, and the works of T. von Laue, A. Adams, S. Black were brought to the forefront. However, Laue, as the authors write, failed to establish his own "school", because his concept of" revolution from the outside " (according to which all the so-called backward countries can gain weight on the world stage only by following the path of more developed powers) is not suitable for ideological export.

Having established the ability of bourgeois historiography to adapt to changing realities and modify its theoretical baggage, P. N. Zyryanov and V. V. Shelokhaev convincingly show that even in the "new", improved version of the concept of American and English historians, they give a false idea of the prerequisites and driving forces of the three Russian revolutions. Indeed, even in the works of Laue, D. Kip, D. Walkin, and D. Clarkson, published in the 1960s, autocracy is portrayed as an extra-class and super-class institution that determines the historical development of the country, and its main opponent is an ostensibly consonant "censorship society". This formulation of the question presupposes a deliberately biased coverage of the role of the workers 'and peasants' movement and the causes that led to the maturation of the revolutionary situation in Russia at the beginning of the XX century. The authors are quite correct in noting the persistence in modern bourgeois historiography of primitive cliches more than half a century ago: statements about the archaic, "stagnation" of Russian society at the beginning of the XX century (made by T. von Laue based on the study of the "Code of Laws" of 1830).absolutization of the peasant community and ascribing to the Russian peasants a desire for blind rebellion, allegedly preserved from the time of Razin and Pugachev (L. Volin); portraying Russian liberals as "radical democrats" (D. Tredgold, S. Galay).

5 See "Against Modern Anti-Communism". Prague. 1970, pp. 19-20.

page 165

At the same time, the book provides examples of the refusal of a number of bourgeois historians from traditional cliches. Thus, the Englishman L. Kochen disagrees with the majority of his colleagues, who attribute an exclusively economic character to the workers ' movement in Russia, and writes about the political activity of the masses in 1905 (pp. 51-52); his compatriot M. Perry, who used the works of V. I. Lenin and Soviet historians, recognizes the facts of the stratification of the Russian peasantry at the beginning of the XX century. the growth of his political consciousness in comparison with the seventies of the XIX century (pp. 36-37).

To understand the origins of a number of versions of modern bourgeois historiography of the first Russian Revolution, an analysis of the sources used by Western historians is of great importance. The authors of Soviet works devoted to the criticism of bourgeois versions rightly emphasize the continuity of the theoretical baggage of the ideologists of Russian bourgeois, as well as petty-bourgeois parties, and modern bourgeois historians. However, it is often limited to stating a fact, without specifically identifying the similarity of the concepts of both. The book by P. N. Zyryanov and V. V. Shelokhaev traces the specific cadet, Menshevik, and Narodnik sources to which the ideas of modern American and English historians go back. Thus, the thesis about the extra-class character of Russian liberalism and its expression of the interests of the entire "nation" is borrowed from the writings of cadet leaders P. N. Milyukov and V. A. Maklakov, whose ideas were firmly rooted in American bourgeois Slavistics thanks to the activities (teaching and printing) of M. Karpovich and G. Vernadsky (p. 124-129); the artificial archaization of Russian society, the image of the Russian proletariat as "peasant workers" far removed from the political struggle, migrated to the works of Laue, Walkin, Black and other modern bourgeois historians from the writings of the liberal narodniks N. F. Danielson, N. A. Kablukov, A.V. Peshekhonov (p. 27 - 28).

When criticizing bourgeois concepts, the authors use not only the most important theoretical and factual material available in the works of V. I. Lenin and in party documents, as well as accumulated in Soviet historiography, including the most recent, but also archival data (see pp. 55, 146), which is still rarely observed in criticism of anti-Marxist literature.

However, some comments can also be addressed to the authors. For example, by correctly pointing out that the theory of" Westernization "is losing its former popularity in the West, they could more clearly emphasize the continuity, the unified methodological basis of this theory and the concepts of" revolution from outside "and"modernization" that emerged after it. Ultimately, all these schemes of bourgeois science are designed to present the capitalist West as a kind of leader in global social development, and its political, economic, and cultural institutions as a role model. One can hardly agree that the American school of history is characterized by a tendency towards generalization (p. 13); this trait, which is rather inherent in the German bourgeois philosophy of history, was not accidentally personified primarily in the person of Laue, a native of Germany. The three groups within American and English non-Marxist historiography are not clearly distinguished (p. 14). The persistent struggle against the Marxist understanding of history characterizes not only the representatives of the third group (who seek to put forward new theories in opposition to Marxism), but also the representatives of the first group, which includes ardent anti-communists like Shapiro.

It was possible to pay more attention to the analysis of interpretations in the bourgeois historical literature of Stolypin's agrarian reform - it plays an important role in the concepts of "non-necessity" of the October Revolution. In general, the entire ending of the chapter devoted to the politics of the autocracy turned out to be somewhat crumpled.

With the publication of the book under review, the complex of problems associated with the history of the first Russian Revolution and serving to this day as an arena of struggle between Marxist and bourgeois historiography is by no means exhausted. An important aspect of the problem is the international significance of the revolution of 1905-1907 and its impact on the course of events in other parts of the world. Special works of bourgeois historians are devoted to this topic, which was hardly touched upon by P. N. Zyryanov and V. V. Shelokhaev .6 It was interesting

6 In addition to the work of I. Spector used by the authors, see, for example, A. Thompson and R. Hart on this topic. The Unsertain Crucade. America and the Revolution of 1905. Amherst. 1970.

page 166

It would help to critically analyze the variants of the concept of "modernization" used simultaneously in the study of the development of Russia and other countries7.This would help to more clearly identify the inconsistency of the methodology of modern bourgeois comparative studies , which claims to draw global conclusions based on superficial and often one-sided comparisons.

Yu. I. Igritsky

7 См. например, "The Modernization of Japan and Russia. Ed. by C. E. Black, M. B. Jansen, H. S. Levine. N. Y. - L. 1975.

page 167

Permanent link to this publication: