As the practice of social development shows, the main political forms for the implementation of urgent economic, social, socio-cultural changes are reforms and revolutions. The political history of Russia is rich in examples of both the former and the latter. Studying revolutionary processes, Russian researchers proceed from the totality of theoretical and methodological approaches available in modern political science and sociology. The number of works by Russian authors that contain a political analysis of the revolutionary processes in Russia is very small. In this regard, there is a need to dwell on the basic theoretical concepts of the revolution that have developed within the framework of sociology and political science.

Modern political science and sociology pay much attention to the study of the mechanisms underlying revolutionary processes. The most common definition of revolution belongs to S. Huntington, who considered it a rapid, fundamental and violent change in the dominant values ​​and myths of society, its political institutions, social structure, leadership, government activities and politics. Reforms are partial changes in certain spheres of society, including the political one, that do not affect its fundamental foundations.

Political thought initially considered revolutions exclusively through the prism of an ideological approach. The political ideology of conservatism arises mainly as a reaction to the events of the French Revolution. Describing the bloody excesses of this revolution in his book “Reflections on the Revolution in France”, one of the founders of conservatism, Edmund Burke, formulated the view inherent in this ideology on revolutionary processes like the French one: revolution is a social evil, it exposes the worst, basest sides of human nature. The causes of the revolution are seen by conservatives, first of all, in the appearance and dissemination of false and harmful ideas.

Early liberalism assessed the revolution from completely different positions. The liberal doctrine considered the revolution justified in the event that the government violates the terms of the social contract. Therefore, many representatives of classical liberalism named among the fundamental human rights the right to rebellion. Gradually, under the impression of the extremes of the real revolutionary processes in liberalism, a more cautious assessment of this phenomenon began to take shape.

Even before the French Revolution, attempts were made to combine the idea of ​​communism and socialism with the idea of ​​the revolutionary overthrow of the former political power. During the years of the French Revolution and after it, the number of such attempts increased enormously. The most prominent continuer of the traditions of revolutionary communism was K. Marx. For him, revolutions are "the locomotives of history" and "a celebration of the oppressed." K. Marx created one of the first theoretical concepts of revolution. This concept outwardly looks very reasonable and logically verified. From the point of view of Marxism, the underlying causes of revolutions are connected with the conflict within the mode of production - between the productive forces and production relations. At a certain stage of their development, the productive forces can no longer exist within the framework of the former production relations, primarily property relations. The conflict between the productive forces and production relations is resolved in the "epoch of social revolution", by which the founder of Marxism understood a long period of transition from one socio-economic formation to another. The climax of this period is the actual political revolution.

K. Marx saw the causes of political revolutions in the class struggle, which he considered the main driving force of social development in general. Class conflicts are especially aggravated precisely during periods of socio-economic crises caused by the lagging of production relations behind the productive forces. In the course of a political revolution, the more advanced social class overthrows the reactionary class and, using the mechanism of political power, brings about urgent changes in all spheres of social life.

Marxism saw the revolution as the highest form of social progress, and the reform as a mere by-product of the class struggle. In accordance with Marx's logic of changing socio-economic formations, the political revolution, as it were, drew a line under the process of transition from one such formation to another. The only exception was the highest type of socio-political revolution - the proletarian or socialist revolution. In the course of the socialist revolution, the most advanced class - the proletariat - overthrows the power of the bourgeoisie and begins the transition to a new communist society. K. Marx associated the beginning of such a transition with the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the purpose of which should be to suppress the resistance of the overthrown exploiting classes and the elimination of private property as the main prerequisite for the elimination of class differences in general. It was assumed that the socialist revolution would inevitably take on a worldwide character and begin in the most developed countries, since it required a high degree of maturity of capitalist society and a high degree of maturity of the material prerequisites for a new social order. In practice, however, social development did not go at all as K. Marx imagined. The working-class movement in the countries of Western Europe - and it was on it that K. Marx and F. Engels pinned special hopes - in most cases of social revolution preferred social reform. The ideas of revolutionary Marxism found support in such countries and regions that the founders of this trend themselves under no circumstances considered suitable for starting a communist experiment.

In parallel with Marxism in the XIX century. other attempts were also made to create theoretical concepts of the revolution, to explain the causes of their occurrence and the mechanisms of development. An example of this is the book The Old Order and Revolution by Alexis de Tocqueville. In contrast to K. Marx, A. Tocqueville saw the causes of revolutions not in the economic crisis caused by the lag of production relations behind the productive forces that had gone ahead. He believed that revolutionary explosions may not necessarily occur as a result of a deterioration in the situation in society. People, according to the thinker, get used to hardships and patiently endure them if they consider them inevitable.

But as soon as there is hope for improvement, these hardships are already perceived as unbearable. That is, the cause of revolutionary events is not the degree of economic need and political oppression in itself, but their psychological perception. From the point of view of A. Tocqueville, this was on the eve of the French Revolution, when the masses of the French began to perceive their situation as unbearable, although objectively the situation in France during the reign of Louis XVIII was more favorable than in previous decades. It was not the despotism of absolute royalty itself, but attempts to soften it, that provoked revolutionary ferment, since people's expectations of an improvement in their position grew much faster than the real possibilities of such an improvement.

A. Tocqueville admitted that France was on the verge of serious changes in the economic sphere and political regime, but did not consider the revolution inevitable in those conditions. In fact, the revolution did the same work that was carried out without it, but at a huge cost to the whole society. The culmination of the revolution was the establishment of a dictatorship that surpassed in its cruelty all pre-revolutionary monarchical governments.

With the emergence of positivist sociology in the middle and second half of the XIX century. revolution began to be seen as a deviation from the normal course of social development. The classics of sociology O. Comte and G. Spencer opposed the idea of ​​revolution to the idea of ​​evolution - gradual social changes carried out through political, economic and social reforms.

Among the sociological concepts of the revolution, the concept of the Italian sociologist Vilfredo Pareto gained great fame. V. Pareto connected revolutions with the change of ruling elites. According to his concept, the elite controls the masses, manipulating their feelings with the help of ideas that justify their own domination. But these funds alone are not enough to maintain power, so the ruling elite must be able to use force when necessary. Such a need may arise in the context of a social crisis, which can be seen as a kind of test for the elite for its suitability for its purpose. V. Pareto believed that the most talented and energetic elements of society should be represented in the elite. Only such an elite, which has an undoubted superiority over the masses, is able to successfully implement its functions. The viability of the ruling elite depends on the way it is formed. If channels of vertical social mobility operate in a society, then it is constantly replenished by the most worthy representatives of the bulk of the population. If the channels of vertical mobility are blocked, then the ruling elite gradually degenerates, and elements embodying impotence, decay and decline, which do not have the psychological qualities that would ensure the preservation of the former regime, accumulate in its composition.

As the incompetence of the ruling elite grows, society plunges into a crisis caused by erroneous management decisions. At the same time, among the lower strata, the number of elements with the qualities necessary for managing society is increasing. These elements are integrated into the counter-elite, unite the masses around themselves on the basis of revolutionary ideas and direct their discontent against the ruling regime. The former ruling elite at a decisive moment is unable to effectively use force and therefore loses power. However, if the mechanism for recruiting the ruling elite is not fundamentally changed, the situation will repeat itself: the degenerate elite will be overthrown again. The cycles of rise and fall, rise and fall are, according to V. Pareto, necessary and inevitable, the change of elites is the law of human society, and its history is a "graveyard of the aristocracy".

The ideas of V. Pareto had a great influence on political science and sociology of the 20th century. In particular, some of them were used by P. A. Sorokin, the creator of the first modern concept of revolution. In his well-known book The Sociology of Revolution, he attempted an objective scientific analysis of the phenomenon of revolution, far from the one-sidedness of an ideologized approach, be it conservative or Marxist. Finding out the causes of revolutions, P. Sorokin studied the behavior of people in revolutionary periods. He believed that human behavior is determined by innate, "basic" instincts. These are the digestive instinct, the instinct of freedom, the possessive instinct, the instinct of individual self-preservation, the instinct of collective self-preservation. The general suppression of basic instincts, or, as P. Sorokin wrote, the "repression" of a large number of them, inevitably leads to a revolutionary explosion. A necessary condition for an explosion is the fact that these "repressions" extend to a very large or even overwhelming part of the population. Just like his political opponent V. Lenin, P. Sorokin considered the “crisis of the lower classes” alone to be insufficient for a revolution. Analyzing the causes and forms of the "crisis of the tops", P. Sorokin, rather, followed the approaches and conclusions of V. Pareto. Like the Italian sociologist, he saw one of the most important causes of revolutionary crises in the degeneration of the former ruling elite. Describing the atmosphere of various pre-revolutionary eras, P. Sorokin noted the impotence inherent in them of the ruling elites, unable to perform the elementary functions of power, and even more so to resist the revolution by force.

In the revolutionary process, P. Sorokin distinguished two main stages: the first, the transition from the normal period to the revolutionary one, and the second, the transition from the revolutionary period back to the normal one. Such cyclicity in the development of the revolution is connected with the basic social mechanism of people's behavior. The revolution generated by the "repression" of the basic basic instincts does not eliminate this "repression", but strengthens it even more. For example, famine is becoming even more widespread as a result of the disorganization of the entire economic life and trade exchange. In the conditions of chaos and anarchy, inevitably generated by the revolution, the danger to human life increases, i.e., the instinct of self-preservation is "repressed". The factors that pushed people to fight against the old regime contribute to the growth of their confrontation with the new revolutionary government, which, with its despotism, further intensifies this confrontation. The requirements of unlimited freedom, characteristic of the initial period of the revolution, are replaced at its next stage by the desire for order and stability.

The second stage of the revolution, according to P. Sorokin, has a pronounced tendency to return to the usual, time-tested forms of life. Such a return can take place both in the form of a counter-revolution, directly and directly rejecting the relations and institutions generated by the revolution, and in a more moderate and selective rejection of some of them. Without denying the fact that revolutions lead to the implementation of already urgent changes, P. Sorokin considered them the worst way to improve the material and spiritual conditions of life of the masses. Moreover, very often revolutions do not end at all in the way that their leaders promise and the people passionate about their goals hope.

In the interwar period, the book Anatomy of a Revolution by the American sociologist C. Brinton became widely known. Based on the historical experience, primarily of France and Russia, K. Brinton singled out several stages through which any great revolution passes. It is preceded by the accumulation of social and economic contradictions that do not find timely resolution and therefore contribute to increased discontent and anger among the majority of the population. Further, the growth of oppositional sentiments among intellectuals begins, and radical and revolutionary ideas appear and spread. Attempts by the ruling class to implement reforms are belated, ineffective, and further intensify social unrest. In a crisis of power, the revolutionaries manage to win, the old regime collapses.

After the victory of the revolution, among its leaders and activists, there is a demarcation into a moderate and a radical wing. The desire of the moderates to keep the revolution within certain limits runs into the growing opposition of the radical masses of the people, who want to satisfy all their aspirations, including those that are initially impossible. Relying on this opposition, the revolutionary extremists come to power, and the climax of the development of the revolutionary process comes. The highest stage of the revolution - the stage of "terror" - is characterized by attempts to completely and completely get rid of the entire legacy of the old regime. K. Brinton, like P. Sorokin, considered the final stage of the revolution to be the “Thermidor” stage. He associated its offensive with "a cure for revolutionary fever." Thermidor comes to a society agitated by the revolution, just as the ebb follows the tide. Thus, the revolution in many ways returns to the point from which it began.

To understand the socio-political processes that have taken place in our country and many other countries of the world in the last century, one should pay attention to the concept of J. Davis and T. Garr, which, in essence, is a modification and development of the views of A. de Tocqueville and is known as the name of the theory of relative deprivation. Relative deprivation refers to the gap between value expectations (material and other conditions of life recognized by people as fair for themselves) and value opportunities (the amount of life's benefits that people can actually receive). The protest is by no means caused by the absolute dimensions of the poverty and misery of the masses. You can find, points out J. Davis, countless historical periods when people lived in constant poverty or were subjected to extremely strong oppression, but did not openly protest against it. Constant poverty or deprivation does not make people revolutionaries; more often than not, they endure such conditions with humility or mute despair. Only when people begin to wonder what they should have in fairness, and feel the difference between what is and what should be, then the syndrome of relative deprivation arises.

J. Davis and T. Garr identify three main paths of historical development that lead to the emergence of such a syndrome and aggravate it to the level of a revolutionary situation. The first way is as follows: as a result of the emergence and spread of new ideas, religious doctrines, values, there is an expectation of higher living standards that people perceive as fair, but the absence of real conditions for the implementation of such standards leads to mass discontent. Such a situation could trigger a revolution of awakened hopes. The second way is in many ways directly opposite to the first. Expectations remain the same, but there is a significant deterioration in the ability to meet the basic necessities of life as a result of an economic or financial crisis, or in the event of a state failure to provide an acceptable level of public safety, or due to the rise of an authoritarian, dictatorial regime. The gap between what people consider deserved and fair and what they have in reality is perceived as unbearable. This situation is called by J. Davis the revolution of selected benefits. The third path combines elements of the first two. Hopes for an improvement in the situation and the possibility of a real satisfaction of needs are growing at the same time. This happens in a period of progressive economic growth, living standards begin to rise, and the level of expectations also rises. But if, against the backdrop of such prosperity, for some reason (wars, economic recession, natural disasters, etc.), the ability to satisfy habitual needs falls sharply, this leads to a revolution of the collapse of progress. Expectations continue to grow out of inertia, and the gap between them and reality becomes even more unbearable. The decisive factor, according to J. Davis, will be a vague or obvious fear that the soil that has become habitual will leave from under your feet.

However, it should be understood that no classical or modern concept of revolution is capable of fully explaining such a complex socio-political phenomenon. Each of them only reflects individual elements and aspects of the revolutionary processes. A study of the actual practice of these processes and their results allows us to conclude that the revolutions never ended as the revolutionaries themselves dreamed of. Very often, their results turned out to be directly opposite and brought with them even greater injustice, inequality, exploitation, oppression. As a result, towards the end

18th century the myth of revolution as a synonym for progressive change was destroyed. The revolution was no longer the embodiment of the highest logic of history. The influence of ideological doctrines, which still rely on revolutionary violence, has fallen sharply, and sociological and political concepts of social development consider gradual, evolutionary changes as the preferred form of development.

Unresolved socio-economic and socio-political problems in Russia were aggravated during the First World War, so the revolutionary events of 1917 came quite naturally. The February revolution can be most adequately explained based on the concepts of J. Davis and V. Pareto. They see the causes of revolutions in the emergence of a socio-psychological syndrome in the minds of people, the essence of which is the perception of their position as extremely miserable and unfair, which pushes them to revolt against the authorities. This syndrome appears along with increased expectations and the lack of real opportunities to meet the needs formed by these expectations. Another option is the impossibility for some reason to satisfy the usual needs in full. And finally, this syndrome can manifest itself when, as a result of a previous favorable situation, people's expectations increase, and the possibilities of actually meeting the increased needs deteriorate sharply, for example, due to a natural disaster, war or economic crisis. Approximately so it was in Russia on the eve of 1917. The relatively favorable socio-economic situation of the pre-war years was replaced by a progressive deterioration in living conditions during the war. The explosion of popular discontent in February 1917 was connected with this circumstance. This explosion was the reaction of the masses to the long-term suppression by the authorities of the basic, according to P. Sorokin, instincts that determine people's behavior.

However, at the very beginning, the nature of the revolutionary crisis was determined not only by social conflicts "below", but also by the conflict of elites "above". In this regard, we should recall one of the first sociological concepts of the revolution by V. Pareto, who saw the main causes of revolutions in the conflict between the ruling elite and the counter-elite, challenging the former for the leading position in society. With the degradation of the former ruling elite and as a result of this decrease in the effectiveness of managerial decisions, society enters a period of crisis. At the same time, the most capable representatives of the masses are being integrated into the counter-elite, which is declaring its claims to power. Real revolutionary processes, of course, have much more complex dynamics and are caused by very diverse factors. One of these factors is the conflict of elites.

In the Russian reality of the beginning of the XX century. the signs of such a conflict are quite clear. The ruling elite of autocratic Russia in the last period of the empire's existence was aristocratic in origin. If we recall the names of officials who held ministerial or other important positions in the power structures of the Russian Empire of that period, we can note that the same names are often repeated. This clearly shows how narrow was the circle of applicants for the highest positions in the state. Blood relationship with the ruling dynasty was a factor that accelerated the promotion to the highest positions in the state hierarchy. Of course, there were channels for recruiting people from the middle and lower strata of the nobility and even the “lower” classes into the ruling elite, but this was only possible as a result of slow progress up the steps of the bureaucratic ladder, and the speed and success of promotion depended by no means only on the business qualities of a person. , but also from family ties and the ability to serve the authorities.

The composition of the ruling elite of the then Russia, the methods of its recruitment determined its main qualities. First of all, this is conservatism, manifested in a distrustful and even hostile attitude towards any innovations, even those that came from the emperor himself. The isolation of the elite inevitably led to its degradation, expressed in the appearance of frankly weak and incompetent people in the most important government posts, in a decrease in the level and quality of managerial decisions and, as a result, a deterioration in the situation in those areas that these decisions directly affected.

The tendency towards the degradation of the ruling elite especially intensified during the First World War. Russia's unpreparedness for war, the disorganization of the supply of the population and the army, the progressive crisis of the transport system were associated with the miscalculations of the ruling circles, the inability of the bureaucratic apparatus of the empire to cope with urgent problems. The most clearly named tendency was revealed during the period of Rasputinism, when the patronage of an ignorant old man became the criterion for appointment to high positions. This situation sharply aggravated the conflict between the aristocratic-bureaucratic elite, which was in power, and the opposition counter-elite, which was actively formed in previous years, and was quite broad in its composition.

For the integration and political and organizational design of the counter-elite as a result of the revolutionary events of 1905-1907. a favorable situation has arisen. On the one hand, the emergence of conditions for the legal activity of non-radical political parties and the introduction, albeit a truncated one, of the institution of parliamentarism in the form of the State Duma for the first time created a sphere of public policy autonomous from the state. But, on the other hand, the principles of formation of executive power structures remained unchanged. Thus, a situation arose that allowed some of the liberal politicians to openly declare their views and proposals on issues of social development, but deprived them of the opportunity to have a real impact on the solution of these problems.

The detachment from the real government of the country gave rise to a kind of inferiority complex among the ambitious representatives of the "public" (which the leaders of moderate opposition parties considered themselves to be). This complex was expressed in constant and, perhaps, not always fair attacks on the "ruling bureaucracy". The confrontation between the “public” and “authorities” intensified with the outbreak of the World War. As already mentioned, many of the difficulties that befell Russia with the outbreak of hostilities were the result of insufficient competence and irrational managerial decisions of the then ruling elite. Naturally, the counter-elite could not fail to take advantage of this situation in order to even louder declare their claims to participate in solving the most important problems facing the state and society. These claims have even been institutionalized in two main forms. Firstly, in the form of the Union of Zemstvos and Cities (Zemgor) created with the active participation of liberals and right-centrists, and secondly, in the form of the Progressive Bloc formed in the State Duma, which included the majority of deputies of the lower house, primarily representatives of the parties of the Cadets and Octobrists. Declaring its support for the course of waging war and remaining loyal to the allied duty, the Progressive Bloc, as a kind of payment for such support, put forward the demand for the creation of a "responsible ministry." That is, in the midst of hostilities, the pre-war claim of the counter-elite to their participation in the executive power was once again openly declared by forming a government accountable to the State Duma.

The oppositionists sought to achieve their goals by an apex coup. Even the monarchists, concerned about the fate of the monarchy, considered it possible to save it by entering into a secret conspiracy to kill Rasputin - the main, from their point of view, the culprit of the impending socio-political crisis. Among the leaders of the Progressive Bloc, the idea of ​​​​a conspiracy also arose more than once, but which had a different goal - the elimination of the power of Nicholas II in one way or another. Not only many members of the opposition, but also those who stood close to the helm of power, pinned their hopes on the emperor's brother, Mikhail Alexandrovich. It was believed that, having become regent for a minor heir, he would meet the aspirations of "society" and satisfy all the political and economic demands of the Progressive Bloc, while maintaining loyalty to the allies and bringing the war to a victorious end.

Considering the above circumstances, it is possible to better understand the mechanism of the events of February 1917. Numerous facts testified that the country had accumulated a huge potential for a social explosion, but it seems that there was no fatal inevitability of the collapse of the existing system at the turn of winter and spring of 1917. The crisis caused by the war coincided with the conflict between the old and new elites, which left its mark on the way and form of its resolution. Seeing the unrest as a threat to the stability of the state, the leaders of the Duma opposition decided to save the situation by a long-planned combination with the abdication of Nicholas II from the throne.

However, the events took such a turn that all previously built plans were destroyed. Nicholas II unexpectedly abdicated not only for himself, but for his son. The old government collapsed overnight, making room for those who had long been eager to try their hand at governing the country. At the very beginning, the February Revolution really looked like a classic change of ruling elites; according to V. Pareto, the old elite left, or rather, fled in the literal sense of the word, and the new one took its place. But this, perhaps, is where the similarity with the theoretical concept ends. Although the first composition of the Provisional Government was personally the same “responsible ministry” about which representatives of the Progressive Bloc spoke so much, the effectiveness of its activities was no higher than that of the previous administration. University professors and lawyers from the capital turned out to be no better than the tsarist bureaucrats, who were so zealously criticized by them. Of course, the failures of the Provisional Government were also explained by the difficult situation in the country, but one cannot discount the lack of real managerial experience, as well as the lack of special knowledge of the newly minted ministers and other government officials.

When investigating the problems of the Russian revolution, one should not forget the fact that, perhaps for the first time in history, a revolution was not only a spontaneous social explosion of the lower classes, but also the result of the conscious activity of radical organized groups. Russian intelligentsia back in the 19th century. was fond of the ideas of revolution and socialism, which, as was shown, not so much contributed as hindered the implementation of the tasks of modernizing the country (see chapters III and V). By the end of the XIX century. Marxism becomes the most influential ideological doctrine among the Russian revolutionary intelligentsia. For the historical fate of Russia, this was of great importance. The fact is that Marxism originated in the West at a time when many European countries were experiencing the most dramatic moments of industrialization and monopolization. The Industrial Revolution created a large class of urban industrial workers whose situation was very difficult. Mid 19th century was marked by mass social movements based on urban workers, many socio-political concepts appeared that appealed to them and spoke on their behalf. Marxism was at first one of them, but then it gained wide popularity and support. At the same time, it was not so much the workers themselves who became adherents of Marxism, but intellectuals. The influence of the revolutionary ideas of Marxism in the working environment depended on the level of material well-being of the workers themselves and the degree of economic and, as a result, political stability.

By the time the Marxist doctrine finally took shape, the situation of industrial workers in the most industrialized country of the then world - England - had improved, and therefore the British workers were not interested in the revolutionary ideas of Marxism. Engels had to write with bitterness that the British workers think about politics in the same way as the British bourgeoisie. The founders of Marxism saw the reason for the change in the class consciousness of the English proletariat in its "bribery" by the ruling class through the exploitation of the peoples of the British Empire.

However, in many other countries that reached high levels of economic development, the radical mood of the working class was on the wane. More attractive than revolutionary slogans were the ideas of social partnership. If in the 19th century in a number of countries mass social democratic parties arose, oriented towards revolutionary goals, then later these same parties evolved in a reformist direction, completely abandoning the Marxist ideology. The emergence and spread of Marxism in Western Europe did not coincide with the most dramatic period of modernization in the Western European countries.

In Russia, the situation was different. Here is the life of city workers at the end of the 19th century. was very similar to that described in F. Engels' famous book The Condition of the Working Class in England. A unique situation has developed: on the one hand, numerous problems and contradictions have been revealed that are characteristic of any society that has entered a period of modernization, but has not completed it; on the other hand, a radical intelligentsia was formed, carried away by the ideas of revolution and socialism. A significant part of this intelligentsia enthusiastically met the teachings of K. Marx, the perception of which was prepared by the already existing socialist tradition. It should be noted that the spread of Marxism in Russia fully corresponded to one of the most fundamental features of Russian political culture - the confrontation between "soil" and "Western" tendencies. This confrontation, being a product of the socio-cultural split of Russian society, was first reflected in the struggle between the Slavophiles and Westernizers, and then among the socialist-minded Russian intelligentsia. Since the 1880s The socialist movement in Russia was divided into populists and Marxists, who personified the soil trend, and believed that the model of the socio-economic and political development of Western Europe was universal and would inevitably be repeated in Russia.

However, not all Russian Marxists turned out to be consistent Westernizers. There was a split in the Russian social democracy. The Mensheviks, led by the prominent Russian Marxist G. Plekhanov, remained faithful to orthodox Marxism and, consequently, became the successors of the Western tradition. In contrast to the Mensheviks, the "soil" current of Russian Social Democracy was personified by the Bolsheviks. The emergence of the ideology of Bolshevism is associated with the name of V. Ulyanov (Lenin).

Description There are many theories devoted to revolutions, which is not surprising, given the important role they have played in world history over the past two hundred years. Some theories were created at the very beginning of the development of social sciences, the most important of them was the theory of Marx. Marx lived long before the revolutions inspired by his ideas took place. It should be noted that his theory concerned not only the analysis of the conditions leading to revolutionary transformations, but also indicated ways to promote these transformations. Whatever their value in their own right, Marx's ideas had a tremendous impact on the changes that took place in the twentieth century.

Other theories, which also had a major impact, appeared much later and tried to explain both the "original" revolutions (such as the American and French) and subsequent ones. Some researchers have gone further, trying to study revolutionary activity in combination with other forms of resistance and protest. We will consider four theories devoted to the study of revolutions: Marx's approach, Chalmers Johnson's theory of political violence, James Davis's concept of revolution associated with the growth of economic expectations, and finally the interpretation of collective protest proposed by Charles Tilly, a representative of historical sociology.

Marx's theory

Dot Marx's view of revolution is based on his interpretation of human history as a whole. According to his teaching, the development of society is accompanied by periodic class conflicts, which, escalating, lead to revolutionary changes. The class struggle is generated by insoluble contradictions inherent in any society. The source of the contradictions lies in the economic changes in the productive forces. In any relatively stable society, there is a balance between the economic structure, social relations and political system. As the forces of production change, the contradictions grow, which leads to an open clash of classes and, in the end, to a revolution.

Marx applies this model both to the preceding feudal era and to how he foresees the future development of industrial capitalism. The traditional societies of feudal Europe were based on peasant labor. Serf producers were ruled by the landed aristocracy class and small landowners.

As a result of the economic changes that took place in these societies, cities arose in which trade and industry developed. The new economic system that arose in feudal society itself became a threat to its foundations. Unlike the traditional serf-master system, the new economic order encouraged entrepreneurs to produce goods for sale on the free market. Finally, the contradictions between the old feudal and new capitalist economies became so acute that they took the form of irreconcilable conflicts between the emerging capitalist class and the landowning feudal lords. Revolutions resulted from this process, the most important of which was the French Revolution of 1789. Marx argues that as a result of such revolutions and revolutionary changes that took place in European countries, the capitalist class managed to come to power.

However, as Marx points out, the advent of capitalism gives rise to new contradictions that will eventually lead to the next series of revolutions inspired by the ideals of socialism and communism. Industrial capitalism is an economic order based on the pursuit of personal profit and competition between firms for the right to sell their goods. Such a system creates a gap between a wealthy minority that controls industrial resources and a dispossessed majority of wage workers. Workers and capitalists are entering into an ever-increasing conflict. Ultimately, labor movements and political parties representing the interests of the working masses challenge the power of the capitalists and overthrow the existing political system. If the position of the dominant class is especially strong, then, as Marx argues, violence must be used to bring about the necessary changes. Under other circumstances, the process of transfer of power may be accomplished peacefully, by parliamentary action, and a revolution (in the sense of the definition given above) will not be needed.

Marx expected that in some Western countries revolutions might take place during his lifetime. Later, when it became clear that this would not happen, he turned his attention to other regions. It is curious that Russia, in particular, attracted his attention. He wrote that Russia is an economically backward society that is trying to introduce modern forms of trade and production borrowed from the West. Marx believed that these attempts could lead to more serious contradictions than in European countries, since the introduction of new types of production and technologies in a backward society contributes to the formation of an extremely explosive mixture of old and new. In correspondence with Russian radicals, Marx indicated that these conditions could lead to revolution in their country, but added that the revolution would be successful only if it spread to other Western countries. Under this condition, the revolutionary government of Russia will be able to use the developed economy of Europe and ensure rapid modernization in their country.

Grade

Contrary to According to Marx's expectations, the revolution did not take place in the developed countries of the West. In most Western countries (the exception being the United States) there are political parties that consider themselves socialist or communist; many of them declare their adherence to the ideas of Marx. However, where these parties have come to power, they have generally become much less radical. It is possible, of course, that Marx simply made a mistake in time, and one fine day revolutions will take place in Europe, and in America, and somewhere else. However, it is more likely that Marx's prediction turned out to be wrong. The development of industrial capitalism does not lead, as Marx supposed, to the intensification of conflicts between workers and capitalists.

It certainly does not follow from this that Marx's theory is irrelevant to the modern world. There is an important reason why it cannot fail to matter - Marx's theory has become part of the ideals and values ​​of both revolutionary movements and governments that have come to power. Moreover, some of his views may contribute to the understanding of revolutions in the Third World. The ideas expressed by Marx about Russia are relevant to most of the peasant countries that are experiencing the formation of industrial capitalism. The points of contact between booming industry and traditional systems are becoming hotbeds of tension. People affected by the change in traditional way of life become a source of potential revolutionary opposition to the government, which is trying to maintain the old order.

The main forms of resolving economic, political and social conflicts and crises are reforms and revolutions. The most common definition of revolution belongs to the American political scientist S. Huntington, who considered it a rapid, fundamental and violent change in the dominant values ​​and myths of society, its political institutions, social structure, leadership, government activities and politics. In contrast to revolutions, reforms are partial changes in certain spheres of society that do not affect its fundamental foundations.

Political revolutions are a phenomenon of modern times. For the first time, the phenomenon of the revolution carried out under the banner of freedom appeared in the 18th century; The classic example was the French Revolution. The political analysis of revolutions initially took place within the framework of an ideologized approach.

The conservative political ideology arose mainly as a reaction to the French Revolution. Describing its bloody events, one of the founders of conservatism, Edmund Burke, formulated the view of revolutionary processes inherent in this ideology: revolution is a social evil, it exposes the worst, basest sides of human nature. The conservatives saw the causes of the revolution primarily in the emergence and dissemination of false and harmful ideas.

Representatives of early liberalism assessed the revolution from a different standpoint. The liberal doctrine justified the revolution in the event that the government violates the terms of the social contract. Classical liberalism considered one of the fundamental human rights and the right to rebellion. A more cautious assessment of this phenomenon began to take shape in liberalism gradually, on the basis of the actual practice of revolutionary struggle (see Chapter III).

One of the first theoretical concepts of the revolution was created by K. Marx, he called the revolution "the locomotives of history" and "the holiday of the oppressed." From the point of view of Marxism, the root causes of revolutions are connected with the conflict within the mode of production - between the productive forces and production relations. At a certain stage of their development, the productive forces can no longer exist within the framework of the former production relations, primarily property relations. The conflict between the productive forces and production relations is resolved in the "epoch social revolution, by which the founder of Marxism understood a long period of transition from one socio-economic formation to another. The climax of this period is political revolution. K. Marx saw the causes of political revolutions in the conflict between social classes, which are the main driving force of social development in general. Class conflicts are especially aggravated precisely during periods of socio-economic crises caused by the lagging of production relations behind the productive forces. In the course of a political revolution, the more advanced social class overthrows the reactionary class and, using the mechanism of political power, implements the urgent changes in all spheres of social life.

Marxism saw in the revolution the highest form of social progress, the political revolution, as it were, drew a line under the process of transition from one such formation to another. The only exception was the highest type of socio-political revolution - the proletarian or socialist revolution. In the course of the socialist revolution, the most advanced class - the proletariat - first overthrows the power of the bourgeoisie, and then begins the transition to a new communist society. The dictatorship of the proletariat breaks down the resistance of the exploiting classes, and the elimination of private property becomes a precondition for the elimination of class differences in general. It was assumed that the socialist revolution would inevitably take on a worldwide character and begin in the most developed countries, since it required a high degree of maturity of capitalist society and a high degree of maturity of the material prerequisites for a new social order.

In reality, social development did not go at all as K. Marx imagined. The labor movement in the countries of Western Europe in most cases preferred social reform to social revolution. The ideas of revolutionary Marxism found support in such countries and regions that the founders of this trend themselves considered unsuitable for starting a communist experiment. The merit of adapting the doctrine of Marxism to the conditions of underdeveloped countries belongs to VI Lenin. The additions made by V. Lenin went beyond the scope of the actual Marxist paradigm. In particular, this applies to Lenin's concept of a revolutionary situation. V. I. Lenin believed that any political revolution needs certain conditions for its victory. First condition- the presence of a nationwide crisis, in which not only "the lower classes would not want to live in the old way", but also "the upper classes could not" manage by the old methods. Second condition V. Lenin characterized it as "an exacerbation above the usual needs and calamities of the masses." And third- a significant increase in the social activity of these masses. Such a combination of conditions for the emergence of a revolutionary situation seemed justified not only to Marxists, but to some extent to researchers who were far from communist ideology.

The Marxist theory of revolution has been very attractive for many decades both as a scientific methodology and as a specific program of socio-political action. Today, the Marxist theory of revolution has lost its appeal due to the actual failure of social experiments carried out under the influence of the ideas of K. Marx and V. Lenin in many countries of the world.

Other than that of K. Marx, the theoretical concept of the revolution, the explanation of the causes of its occurrence and the mechanisms of development was proposed by Alexis de Tocqueville. He saw the causes of revolutions not in the economic crisis caused by the lag of production relations behind the productive forces that had gone ahead. Tocqueville believed that revolutionary explosions may not necessarily occur as a result of a worsening situation in society: people get used to hardships and patiently endure them if they consider them inevitable. But as soon as there is hope for improvement, these hardships are already perceived as unbearable. That is, the cause of revolutionary events is not the degree of economic need and political oppression in itself, but their psychological perception. From the point of view of A. Tocqueville, this was on the eve of the French Revolution, when the masses of the French began to perceive their situation as unbearable, although objectively the situation in France during the reign of Louis XVIII was more favorable than in previous decades.

A. Tocqueville admitted that France was on the verge of serious changes in the economic sphere and political regime, but did not consider the revolution inevitable in those conditions. In reality, the revolution, so to speak, "done" the same work that was carried out without it, but at a huge cost to the whole society. The culmination of the revolution was the establishment of a dictatorship that surpassed in its cruelty all pre-revolutionary monarchical governments.

In the 2nd half of the XIX century. within the framework of positivist sociology, the revolution was seen as a deviation from the normal course of social development. O. Comte and G. Spencer contrasted the idea of ​​revolution with the idea of ​​evolution - gradual social changes carried out through political, economic and social reforms.

The socio-psychological concept of G. Lebon, which is based on his studies of the mass behavior of people in revolutionary periods, has become widely known. These periods are characterized by "crowd power", when the behavior of people covered by general excitement differs significantly from their behavior at the individual level or in small groups. G. Lebon found an example of such behavior in the actions of the Parisian people's lower classes during the Great French Revolution. Analyzing the socio-psychological mechanism of this phenomenon, the French scientist noted that people, captured by the collective excitement generated by the crowd, lose the critical abilities inherent in their everyday life. They become easily suggestible and succumb to any, including the absurd, appeals of crowd leaders and demagogues; there is a massive clouding of consciousness. Le Bon's ideas were conservative in nature, their critical edge was directed not only against revolutionary theory and practice, but also against the institutions of parliamentary democracy. But the experience of revolutions already in the 20th century showed that the observations and conclusions of the French sociologist and psychologist were close to the truth.

Great influence on political science and sociology of the XX century. rendered the elitist concept of V. Pareto. Pareto considered the elite a selected part of society, to which all its individual members must adapt. The elite, in his opinion, is characterized by a high degree of self-control and prudence, the ability to see the weak and most sensitive places in others and use them to their advantage. The masses, on the contrary, are characterized by an inability to cope with their emotions and prejudices. For the ruling elite, two basic qualities are especially necessary. First, the ability to convince by manipulating human emotions; secondly, the ability to apply force where it is required. The qualities of the first type are possessed by people whom Pareto called "foxes". They are dominated by basic instincts, called Pareto "the art of combinations", that is, the ability to maneuver, finding all sorts of ways out of emerging situations. The qualities of the second type are inherent in "lions", that is, people who are resolute, firm, even cruel, who do not stop at the use of violence. In different historical eras, ruling elites of various types are in demand.

Pareto's mechanism for changing elites is as follows. There is a constant circulation between the elite and the masses: the best representatives of the masses join the ranks of the elite, and that part of the elite that has lost the necessary qualities leaves its ranks. If the circulation process does not occur, the elite degenerates, the effectiveness of its management activity decreases, as a result of which the economic, social and political problems of society become aggravated. The opposition counter-elite is claiming a place in power structures. Using the dissatisfaction of the people with the policy of the existing government, the counter-elite attracts them to their side. In a situation of social crisis, it overthrows the ruling elite and comes to power. However, in the future, according to Pareto, everything inevitably repeats itself. The new ruling elite gradually becomes more and more closed, and then a revolutionary situation arises again with all the consequences described above.

The well-known sociologist P. A. Sorokin, in his book “The Sociology of Revolution”, published in 1925 in the USA and which became world-famous, attempted an objective, non-ideologized scientific analysis of the phenomenon of revolution. Finding out the causes of revolutions, P. Sorokin based himself on the then dominant behavioral methodology in the socio-political sciences. He believed that human behavior is determined by innate, "basic" instincts. These are the digestive instinct, the instinct of freedom, the possessive instinct, the instinct of individual self-preservation, the instinct of collective self-preservation. The general suppression of basic instincts, or, as P. Sorokin wrote, the "repression" of a large number of them, inevitably leads to a revolutionary explosion. A necessary condition for an explosion is the fact that these "repressions" extend to a very large or even overwhelming part of the population. But besides the “crisis of the lower classes”, a “crisis of the upper classes” is also necessary for the revolution, describing which P. Sorokin followed the approaches and conclusions of V. Pareto. Just like the Italian sociologist, he saw one of the most important causes of revolutionary crises in the degeneration of the former ruling elite.

P. Sorokin singled out two main stages in the revolutionary process: the first is the transition from the normal period to the revolutionary one, and the second is the transition from the revolutionary period back to the normal one. The revolution generated by the "repression" of the basic basic instincts does not eliminate this "repression", but strengthens it even more. For example, famine is becoming even more widespread as a result of the disorganization of the entire economic life and trade exchange. In the conditions of chaos and anarchy, inevitably generated by the revolution, the danger to human life increases, i.e., the instinct of self-preservation is "repressed". The factors that pushed people to fight against the old regime contribute to the growth of their confrontation with the new revolutionary government, which, with its despotism, further intensifies this confrontation. The requirements of unlimited freedom, characteristic of the initial period of the revolution, are replaced at its next stage by the desire for order and stability.

The second stage of the revolution, according to P. Sorokin, is a return to the usual, time-tested forms of life. Without denying that revolutions lead to the implementation of already urgent changes, P. Sorokin considered them the worst way to improve the material and spiritual conditions of the people's life. Moreover, very often revolutions do not end at all in the way that their leaders promise and the people passionate about their goals hope. Therefore, P. Sorokin preferred gradual evolutionary development, believing that progressive processes are based on solidarity, cooperation and love, and not on hatred and uncompromising struggle accompanying all great revolutions.

Before the Second World War, the book of the American sociologist C. Brinton "Anatomy of a Revolution" became widely known. Based on the historical experience, primarily of France and Russia, K. Brinton singled out several stages through which every great revolution passes. It is preceded by the accumulation of social and economic contradictions, which contribute to the accumulation of discontent and anger among the majority of the population. Opposition sentiments are growing among intellectuals, and radical and revolutionary ideas are emerging and spreading. Attempts by the ruling class to implement reforms are belated, ineffective, and further intensify social unrest. In a crisis of power, the revolutionaries manage to win, the old regime collapses.

After the victory of the revolution, among its leaders and activists, there is a demarcation into a moderate and a radical wing. The moderates strive to keep the revolution within certain limits, while the radical masses want to satisfy all their aspirations, including the impossible ones. Relying on this opposition, the revolutionary extremists come to power, and the climax of the development of the revolutionary process comes. The highest stage of the revolution - the stage of "terror" - is characterized by attempts to completely and completely get rid of all the legacy of the old regime. K. Brinton considered the “Thermidor” stage to be the final stage of the revolution. "Thermidor" comes to a society agitated by the revolution, just as the ebb follows the tide. Thus, the revolution in many ways returns to the point from which it began.

Socio-political upheavals of the middle of the XX century. increased attention to the theoretical study of revolutionary processes in political science and sociology in the 50-70s. The most famous concepts of the revolution of this period belong to C. Johnson, J. Davis and T. Gurr, C. Tilly.

Ch. Johnson's concept of revolution is based on the sociological ideas of structural-functional analysis. A necessary condition for the implementation of the revolution, Ch. Johnson considered the exit of society from a state of equilibrium. Social instability arises as a result of a breakdown in the links between the basic cultural values ​​of a society and its economic system. The emerging instability affects the mass consciousness, which becomes receptive to the ideas of social change and political leaders - supporters of these ideas. Although the old regime is gradually losing the legitimate support of the population, the revolution itself will not become inevitable if the ruling elite finds the strength to implement the urgent changes and thereby restore the balance between the main social institutions. Otherwise, the changes will be carried out by the political forces that came to power as a result of the revolution. In Ch. Johnson's concept, much attention is paid to the so-called accelerators (accelerators) of revolutions, to which he ranked wars, economic crises, natural disasters and other emergency and unforeseen events.

The concept of J. Davis and T. Gurr is essentially a modification and development of the views of A. de Tocqueville; it is known as the "relative deprivation" theory.

Relative deprivation refers to the gap between value expectations (material and other conditions of life recognized by people as fair for themselves) and value opportunities (the amount of life's benefits that people can actually receive).

D. Davis points out that in the history of mankind one can find quite a few periods when people lived in poverty or were subjected to extremely strong oppression, but did not openly protest against this. Constant poverty or deprivation does not make people revolutionary; only when people begin to wonder what they should have in fairness, and feel the difference between what is and what should be, then the syndrome of relative deprivation arises.

D. Davis and T. Gurr identify three main paths of historical development that lead to the emergence of such a syndrome and a revolutionary situation. The first way is as follows: as a result of the emergence and spread of new ideas, religious doctrines, value systems, there is an expectation of higher living standards that people perceive as fair, but the absence of real conditions for the implementation of such standards leads to mass discontent. Such a situation could trigger a "revolution of awakened hopes". The second way is in many respects directly opposite. Expectations remain the same, but there is a significant decrease in the ability to meet the basic needs of life as a result of an economic or financial crisis, or, if it is not primarily a matter of material factors, due to the inability of the state to provide an acceptable level of public safety, or due to the rise to power of an authoritarian , dictatorial regime. This situation is called by D. Davis "revolution of selected benefits". The third way is a combination of the first two. Hopes for improvement and opportunities for actual satisfaction of needs grow at the same time. This happens during a period of progressive economic growth: living standards begin to rise, and the level of expectations also rises. But if, against the backdrop of such prosperity, for some reason (wars, economic recession, natural disasters, etc.), the ability to satisfy the needs that have become habitual falls sharply, this leads to what is called the “revolution of the collapse of progress.” Expectations continue to grow out of inertia, and the gap between them and reality becomes even more unbearable.

C. Tilly focused on the mechanisms of mobilization of various groups of the population to achieve revolutionary goals. In From Mobilization to Revolution, he sees revolution as a special form of collective action that includes four main elements: organization, mobilization, common interests, and opportunity. Protest movements can only become the beginning of revolutionary collective action, C. Tilly believes, when they are formalized into revolutionary groups with strict discipline. In order for collective action to take place, such a group needs to mobilize resources (material, political, moral, etc.). Mobilization occurs on the basis of the common interests of those who are involved in collective action. Social movements as a means of mobilizing group resources arise when people are deprived of institutionalized means to express their interests, and also when the state power is unable to meet the demands of the population or when it increases its demands on it. The inability of the opposition groups to secure an active and effective representation in the former political system is due to their choice of violent means to achieve their goals.

The nature of the conflict between the ruling elite and the opposition determines the degree of transfer of power. If the conflict takes the form of a simple mutually exclusive alternative, then there is a complete transfer of power, without subsequent contacts between representatives of the departed political regime and the post-revolutionary government. If coalitions include various political forces, this facilitates the very process of transferring power, but in the end, the new revolutionary power will rely on a broad political base, including individual representatives of the former regime.

The overwhelming majority of the theoretical concepts of the revolution see it as a completely possible way to resolve the conflicts that have accumulated in public life, but still do not consider this way to be optimal.

google_protectAndRun("ads_core.google_render_ad", google_handleError, google_render_ad); function LoadAd1()( if(document.getElementById("goog2"))( document.getElementById("goog2").innerHTML=document.getElementById("goog2_loader").innerHTML; document.getElementById("goog2_loader").innerHTML= ""; ) ) function LoadAd2()( if(document.getElementById("goog3"))( document.getElementById("goog3").innerHTML=document.getElementById("goog3_loader").innerHTML; document.getElementById("goog3_loader ").innerHTML=""; ) ) setTimeout("LoadAd1()",800); setTimeout("LoadAd2()",1500);

The modern concept of revolution is based on two traditions: historiosophical and sociological. According to the first, revolution means a radical break in continuity, a fundamental crack, a "breakthrough cataclysm" (60; 237) in the course of history. Attention is focused on the general model of the historical process, and revolutions mark qualitative milestones in this model. Most often, certain conclusions are drawn from this in the spirit of development theory. A typical example is the ideas of Karl Marx about the sequence of socio-economic formations, where "social revolutions" are considered as qualitative leaps in the transition to a higher stage of development. Supporters of the second tradition, represented by the sociological concept of revolution, turn to mass actions that use or threaten to use coercion and violence against the authorities in order to strengthen the basis and bring about subsequent changes in society. The focus shifts from universal patterns and outcomes to the driving forces, mechanisms and alternative scenarios of social processes, the means that people use to create and transform history. Revolutions are considered as the brightest manifestations of human creativity, embodied in collective action at critical moments in the historical process. Such a concept is typical of developmental theories of social change that have come to replace developmental theories, whose followers deny that history is built according to some pre-arranged, permanent pattern, or "logic"

Both traditions, the isthiosophical and the sociological, are reflected in contemporary definitions of revolution. They can be divided into three groups. The first includes definitions according to which revolutions are fundamental, widespread transformations of society (here, “great” revolutions are clearly implied). Attention is focused primarily on the scale and depth of the transformations. In this sense, "revolution"

opposed to "reform". Thus, it is defined as "unexpected, radical changes in the political, economic and social structure of society" (64; 542), as "sweeping everything, an unexpected change in the social structure or in some of its important elements" (125; 259). A similar meaning is given to the concepts of "technological", "scientific" or "moral revolution" and "revolution in fashion", "revolution in art".

The second group includes definitions that emphasize violence and struggle, as well as the speed of change. The focus shifts to the transformation technique. In this sense, "revolution" is opposed to "evolution". Here are some such definitions:

"Attempts to effect changes by force" (209; 1). "Fundamental socio-political changes carried out by force" (166; 4). “A decisive, sudden replacement of one group responsible for territorial and political unity with another that was not previously part of the government” (60; 4). “The capture (or attempt to capture) by one class, group or coalition from another the levers of control over the government apparatus, understood as the most important means of coercion, taxation and administrative control in society concentrated in its hands” (30; 44).

Perhaps the most useful definitions of the third group, combining both aspects.

"Rapid, fundamental violent internal changes in society's dominant values ​​and myths, in its political institutions, social structure, leadership, activities and government policies" (198;264). “Fast, basic transformations of the social and class structures of society through upheavals from below” (357; 4). "The seizure of state power by violent methods by the leaders of mass movements and its subsequent use to carry out large-scale social reforms" (151; 605).

So, the vast majority of researchers agree that, firstly, revolutions refer to fundamental, comprehensive multidimensional changes that affect the very

basis of social order. Secondly, they involve large masses of people mobilized and active within the revolutionary movement. Such, for example, are urban and peasant uprisings (206). If the transformations come from above (for example, the Meiji reforms in Japan, Ataturk in Turkey and Nasser in Egypt, perestroika Gorbachev), no matter how deep and fundamental they may be, they cannot be considered revolutions. The same can be said about the changes caused by spontaneous social trends (the use of this term is justified only in the metaphorical sense of the word when it comes to scientific or technological revolution). Third, most writers seem to believe that revolutions are inevitably accompanied by violence and coercion.

This is the only moot point, since there are historical examples of fundamentally non-violent, but surprisingly effective and far-reaching "revolutionary" movements, like Gandhism in India or recent social movements in Eastern and Central Europe (Polish Solidarity's "peace revolution", "Velvet Revolution" in Czechoslovakia). Modern researchers have no doubt that the latter must be qualified precisely as revolutions. I will quote the words of a famous English historian. “The events of 1989 were real revolutions: under the onslaught of the popular masses, governments collapsed one after another, nations regained their lost freedom” (430; 14). With the exception of Romania, there was virtually no violence during these anti-communist revolutions, but its potential threat was clearly felt in the determination, emotional intensity and involvement of the broad masses of the people in the events. It was only under the pressure of such a constant forceful threat that the communist authorities finally gave in.

In conclusion, we list other collective actions other than revolutions. Soir d "etat, or "coup d'état", is a sudden, illegal change of power, government, or personnel of political institutions without any change in the political regime, economic organization, or cultural system. "Rebellion", "rebellion", or "disobedience" refers to mass acts of violence directed against one's own usurpers or foreign invaders, resulting in some change or reform, but not revolutionary change. By "putsch" is meant a situation where a subordinate group refuses to obey, but does not pursue a clear goal of changing anything. "Putsch" means violent overthrow

government army (or part of it), or a group of officers. By "civil war" is meant an armed conflict in society, which is most often caused by religious or ethnic contradictions. The "war of independence" is the struggle of dependent, colonial or alien conquering societies against the power imposed on them from outside. Finally, by “unrest”, “riots” and “social tension” we mean spontaneous expressions of discontent, anxiety, irritation that are not directed against anyone in particular and do not seek any changes. As we can see, collective behavior and collective actions take various forms, but revolutions clearly stand apart: all others may, in specific historical situations, accompany revolutions, precede them or follow them, but these are not revolutions) (399; 198).

The course of the revolution

Historically known revolutions are extremely diverse. Recall, for example, English (1640), American (1776), French (1789), Russian (1917), Mexican (1919), Chinese (1949), Cuban (1959), Filipino (1985), Eastern and Central European (1989). Do they have common, typical features?

Sociologists have already made attempts "to establish a certain uniformity in the description of revolutions" (60; 254), to trace their "natural history" D101; 60). On the basis of the analysis carried out, a sequence of ten stages, characteristic of all revolutions, was revealed.

1. All revolutions are preceded by typical conditions that can be called “prerequisites for a revolution” (60; 27): increased discontent, anger, the emergence of unrest and conflict due to an economic or tax crisis. They are felt most painfully by the rising social classes, not by those who are poor and depressed. “It seems that the strongest feelings are experienced by those who already have money, or at least the means of subsistence, who acutely feel the shortcomings of the privileged aristocracy” (60; 251).

2. At the next stage there is a "change of position of intellectuals" (101): the dissemination of critical views, various forms of agitation, philosophical or political pamphlets,

doctrines directed against the existing regime. Let us recall the French Revolution: Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, Holbach* Volnay, Helvetius, d'Alembert, Condorcet, Bernardin de Saint-Pierre, Beaumarchais. All these are rebels who directed the power of their minds against the church and the state” (60; 44). This state of social consciousness, which can be called "revolutionary spirit", begins to spread everywhere.

3. The regime then tries to ward off the growing threat with partial reforms (for example, Louis XIV's initiatives in France, Stolypin's reforms in Russia), but these attempts are perceived as belated and violent, as a sign of weakness, and therefore they undermine the former regime even more.

4. The increasingly obvious inability of the authorities to manage effectively results in "paralysis of the state" (157; 190). This ultimately gives the revolutionaries the opportunity to seize power.

5. The old regime collapses and a revolutionary honeymoon begins - a period of euphoria after victory.

6. Among the winners, there are signs of internal division on a cardinal issue: conservatives want minimal changes, radicals want to push these changes decisively, moderates favor gradual reforms.

7. Moderate reformers dominate, trying to maintain some continuity with the former regime. This comes into conflict with the aspirations, hopes and dreams of the masses and causes them disappointment.

8. Radicals and extremists are able to exploit widespread discontent, mobilize the masses and remove moderates.

9. The stage of "terror" begins, when the radicals try to introduce order by force and erase all signs of the old regime. The resulting social unrest creates fertile ground for the seizure of power by dictators or the military.

10. A certain balance is gradually restored, the final stage begins - “thermidor”, or “cure from revolutionary fever” (60; 205), when “excesses of radicals are condemned and the emphasis shifts from political changes to economic progress and the formation of a structure of stable institutions” (157; 192).

The presented analysis reveals a number of important aspects of the phenomenon under consideration. However, we find out how are happening

revolution, but we do not get an answer to the most essential question: why they happen. The latter is the realm of theory, not of the "natural histories" of revolutions. Any theory deserving of this name must consist of at least three components: 1) a generalized image, or conceptual model, of the phenomenon; 2) the selection of certain factors, or variables, as the primary determinants, causes or mechanisms of the revolution; 3) the formulation of a number of testable hypotheses about the interdependence of these variables, in particular, the origin, course and consequences of the revolution.

Revolution Models

The most general classification of theories of revolution is based on certain images or models. Some theories put activity, the mobilization of people at the center of their models, others put the structural context, the conditions in which revolutions take place. Among the first, the “volcanic model” can be considered traditional, according to which revolutions break through from below, spontaneously, as a result of the accumulation of general tension, discontent, hostility, exceeding a certain limit. The driving forces are the masses of desperate people who cannot live in the old way. This is an image of "periodically repeated explosions of socio-psychological tensions that boil like lava under the earth's crust or rage like steam in a geyser" (30; 49).

Within the framework of another, “conspiratorial model”, the emphasis is placed on the activities of “conspirators”, who at first do not represent any masses, but act as third-party agitators, pushing the masses to revolutionary action. People become victims of manipulation, propaganda and ideology, through which professional revolutionaries (or groups from among their leaders) incite them to action. Revolutions, therefore, are “the work of subversive elements who simply ingeniously provoke the masses to violence through deceitful promises and coercion” (30; 49). In other words, revolutions are the result of a conspiracy. “The revolution is nurtured by force and artificially. Its seeds, thrown into fertile soil, are fertilized by gardeners - revolutionaries and mysteriously germinate thanks to the same gardeners, contrary to the forces of nature ”(60; 86).

Models of the second type focus on the structural context. They assume that in every society

there is always a large stock of discontent, which spills over into revolution only under certain favorable structural conditions. Revolutions are not "created" but "released". According to the “steam relief valve” model, they “break through” only when there is a breakdown of government control, repressive measures are weakened, and the collapse of the state occurs. “Revolutionary situations developed due to the military-political crisis of the state and the domination of some classes over others. And it was only thanks to the opportunities that arose in this way that the revolutionary leaders and the rebellious masses were able to complete the revolutionary transformations” (357; 17).

Another variation of this approach can be called the “found treasure” model. Revolutions arise in the face of the emergence of new resources and opportunities. Among them, the decisive role is recognized for the "capacity of political structures", giving chances for collective action. An important role is also played by the ecological factor, which unites the masses of people in urban and industrial settlements. Finally, according to some authors, social disorganization and imbalance (systemic imbalance) caused by rapid social change create favorable structural conditions for revolutionary mobilization.

Each of the two types of activity-focused and structure-focused models discussed seems to contain a grain of truth. Probably, in the future, theorizing will take on a more eclectic, multidimensional character. An attempt is likely to be made to integrate all parts of the complex phenomenon of revolution into a single, internally coherent model. Let us consider in more detail some of the theories of revolution that may provide material for such a future synthesis.

Basic theories of revolution

I propose to illustrate the four main "schools" in the theory of revolution - behavioral (behavioral), psychological, structural and political - with the work of their most famous representatives. By necessity, the discussion will be very selective and brief (397).

1. The first modern theory of revolution was proposed in 1925 by Pitirim Sorokin (370). He drew his conclusions based primarily on the experience of the Russian revolution of 1917, in which

took no part. His theory can be considered behavioristic, since he focused on the causes that “generate revolutionary deviations in human behavior” (370; 367), and looked for the causes of this “deviation” in the field of basic, basic human needs and instincts. "... the staging of a grandiose drama, comedy or tragedy of the revolution on the historical stage is predetermined by the first duty of repressed innate reflexes" (370; 383). The revolution radically transforms typical human behavior - a "revolution" in people's behavior occurs immediately: the conventionally accepted "clothes" of civilized behavior are instantly torn off, and "beasts" are released to replace society (370; 372). Sorokin traces and documents such changes in various areas of human life and behavior. Such changes include: “suppression of the possessive instinct of the masses”, “suppression of the sexual reflex”, “suppression of the impulse to compete, creative work, acquisition of diverse experience”, “perversion of religious, moral, aesthetic and other acquired forms of behavior” (370; 41- 169). All this "leads to dysfunction of conventional instincts, violates obedience, discipline, order and other civilized forms of behavior and turns people into raging hordes of madmen" (370; 376).

The author then asks the basic theoretical question "why?" and puts forward two main hypotheses as an answer to it. The first refers to the driving forces behind the revolutionary masses. “The immediate precondition of every revolution has always been an increase the number of suppressed basic instincts of the majority of the population, as well as the impossibility of even their minimal satisfaction” (370; 367). "The general suppression of the basic human instincts", or the suppression of a large number of them, inevitably leads to a revolutionary explosion. For this, "it is also necessary that the 'repressions' spread as widely as possible, and if not among the vast majority of people, then at least among a fairly significant group of the population" (370; 369). Among the basic instincts Sorokin lists: the desire to eat ("digestive reflex"); individual security (“self-preservation instinct”); “a reflex of collective self-preservation; the need for housing, clothing, etc.; sexual instinct; instincts of ownership, self-expression and personal identification. The suppression of the need for freedom (“in the sense of freedom of speech and action”), for freedom of communication, the monotony of life and the suppression of creativity are indicated as

The second hypothesis relates to the reaction of the authorities. “... for a revolutionary explosion, it is also necessary that the social groups acting as guardians of the existing order would not have a sufficient arsenal of means to suppress destructive encroachments from below” (370; 370). “The atmosphere of pre-revolutionary epochs always strikes the observer with the impotence of the authorities and the degeneration of the ruling privileged classes. They are sometimes unable to perform the elementary functions of power, not to mention the forceful resistance to the revolution" (370; 399).

If both conditions - the pressure of the "bottom" and the weakness of the "top" - coincide, the revolution becomes inevitable.

However, revolutions do not eliminate the conditions for the suppression of instincts; on the contrary, post-revolutionary chaos increases the difficulties in satisfying basic, basic needs. People begin to strive for order and stability. At the same time, the revolutionary fervor is fizzling out, as there is an "accelerated depletion of the energy reserve of the human body." In reality, the chances of defeating the counter-revolution are very high. “The population, which is an inert mass, is a convenient material for social “shaping” by a new repressor” (370; 410). The hour of tyrants and despots is coming. This is the ironic end of all revolutions.

2. Psychological theories leave the field of behavioral reflexes or basic (fundamental) instincts and concentrate on the problem of complex motivational orientations. Such theories are close to common sense. Not surprisingly, they have become very popular, and now they can be considered the most developed of all approaches. Most influential proposed by James Davis (93) and Ted Gurr (166) called the "relative deprivation" theory. Revolutions are caused by a painful syndrome of consciousness spreading among the population. “Poverty brings revolution,” or, more precisely, poverty, which people are aware of and which they define as injustice, pushes them to rebellion.

According to W. J. Runciman, “the degree of relative deprivation is a measure of the difference between the desired situation and how a person imagines it” (348; 10). As Ted Gurra puts it, it is “the perceived difference between value expectations (things and conditions of life that

people, they deserve justice) and value opportunities (things and conditions that they can actually get)" (166, 24).

If people are even extremely poor, but take it for granted, as a prescription of fate, providence, or as a correspondence to a predetermined social status, then there is no revolutionary ferment. Only when they begin to wonder what they should have in justice, and feel the difference between what is and what could be, then there is a sense of relative deprivation. This feeling is closely related to the feeling of injustice that arises from comparing what people really have and what others like them have already achieved. The theme of deprivation and injustice penetrates the social consciousness in the period immediately preceding the revolution. “People need to realize their poverty and oppression, and understand that poverty and oppression are not the natural order of the world. It is curious that in this case experience alone, no matter how difficult it may be, is not enough” (212; 86). “Revolutions cannot do without the word “justice” and the feelings that it evokes” (60; 35).

How does this syndrome occur? What is its origin? If we add the dimension of time, then we can distinguish three paths of historical development that lead to the emergence of a heightened sense of relative deprivation, reaching a revolutionary level. The essence of the first is that as a result of the emergence of new ideologies, value systems, religious or political doctrines that set new standards that people deserve and have a right to expect, or due to the “demonstration effect”, deprivation becomes unbearable. People “get embittered because they feel they don’t have enough money to change their lives, to realize their expectations” (166; fifty). Such a situation can trigger a “revolution of awakened hopes” (Figure 20.1).

In the second, directly opposite, situation, hopes remain approximately at the same level, but a significant drop in living standards inevitably occurs. This can happen as a result of an economic or financial crisis, the inability of the state to provide public security, due to a narrowing of the circle of participants in political life, a turn towards an autocratic or dictatorial regime. The gap between what people think they deserve and what they actually have can become unbearable. "A person is angry

low

low

Time

Time

Rice. 20.1. The collapse (deprivation) of hopes.

THEORETICAL CONCEPTS OF THE REVOLUTION 1. The right to resist tyrants in a traditional society 2. Evaluations of the revolution in the ideology of the Enlightenment 3. Attitude towards revolutions in the ideological heritage of the 19th century: - Conservative ideology about the French Revolution - The role of revolutions in the assessments of the ideology of classical liberalism - Theoretical concept of revolution by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels - Anarchist doctrine of social revolution - Ideas about revolutions in the early twentieth century 4. Sociology of the revolution of the twentieth century 5. The concept of revolution in modern political science

F. Hautemann F. Duplessis-Mornet THE RIGHT TO RESIST TO TYRANTS in French political thought of the 17th century FRANCOIS HAUTHMANN Pamphlets "Tiger", "Anti-Tribonian": calls for resistance to usurpers of power, the thesis about the historicity of laws and their compliance with the customs of the country, France has their experience of freedom - Merovingian laws and ancient Germanic customs. In the political program of "Franco-Gaul": proclaimed the principle of the supreme sovereignty of the people, which existed during the time of the Merovingians and Carolingians, when the people chose their monarch. Demands: a return to the ancient constitution of Gaul, to a federation of self-governing republics, to the full rights of the States General, to the right of the people to elect and depose a king, to declare wars, to legislate. For the sake of this, a war against the king for the public good of the country is legitimate, and the nobility should lead it. PHILIPPE DUPLESSI-MORNET Pamphlet "A claim to tyrants" - The people existed before the kings, he elected them, putting the contract and mutual obligations as the basis of their power. Violation of the rights of the people leads to the establishment of tyranny. By the people is meant the nobility and the top of the third estate; they must cleanse the country from the sacrilege of tyranny.

THE THEORY OF THE PUBLIC CONTRACT AND THE RIGHT TO RESIST TYRANCE “On the right of war and peace. ”G. Grotius The state is “a perfect union of free people, concluded for the sake of observing the law and the common good.” The people can change the form of government if the agreement is terminated by the rulers of the state. Citizens have the right to consider the social contract terminated in the event of "extreme necessity", "great and obvious danger" that threatens citizens from the rulers of the state. "Political treatise" the goal of the state in reality is freedom B. Spinoza When the state does something contrary to the dictates of reason, it "sins" against its nature, betrays itself, and in this sense commits a crime. For such a situation of violation of the terms of the treaty by the state authorities, Spinoza recognizes the natural right of the people to revolt.

HUMAN RIGHTS AS A JUSTIFICATION OF THE REVOLUTION 24 pamphlets on human rights problems the state was created at the behest of God by the social agreement of the people, who, by virtue of the innate freedom of people, have the right to govern themselves and create the form of government that they please. If kings say that their power is from God, then the freedom of the people, whose power is primary, is also from God, based on innate rights. D. Milton "People's agreement" D. Lilburn The state was created by mutual agreement of people "for the good and good of everyone." From this follows the inalienable right of the people to organize the state in such a way that this good is ensured. Power must be based on the free choice or consent of the people; no one can dominate people without their free consent. "Two Treatises on Government" Reflections on the Glorious Revolution of 1688. D. Locke The state was created to guarantee natural rights (freedom, equality, property) and laws (peace and security), it should not encroach on these rights, it should be organized so that natural rights are reliably guaranteed. the uprising of the people against the tyrannical power that encroaches on the natural rights and freedom of the people is lawful and necessary

POLITICAL RADICALISM J.-J. RUSSO (1712 -1778) "Discourse on the Arts and Sciences" "On the Social Contract, or Principles of Political Law" "Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality between People" q q THE DEVELOPMENT OF CIVILIZATION WAS ASSOCIATED WITH THE APPEARANCE AND GROWTH OF SOCIAL INEQUALITY, OR WITH THE REGRESS OF FREEDOM . The first time there is wealth inequality. It was an inevitable consequence of the establishment of private ownership of land. From that time on, the state of nature was replaced by civil society. At the next stage, political inequality appears in public life. The state was formed. At this stage, property inequality is supplemented by a new one - the division of society into ruling and subject. The last limit of inequality comes with the degeneration of the state into despotism. In such a state there are no more rulers, no laws - there are only tyrants. Revolt against tyranny is a lawful act

T. Payne E.-J. Sieyès F. Guizot I. Taine APOLOGY REVOLUTION OF T I Y There are grievances that nature cannot forgive: it would cease to be itself if it did so. The Almighty instilled in us an indestructible attraction to goodness and wisdom. If we were deaf to the voice of good feelings, social ties would fall apart, justice on earth would be uprooted ... O you who love humanity! You who dare to resist not only tyranny but tyrant, come forward! T. Payne

The traditionalist concept of Edmund Burke REFLECTIONS ON THE REVOLUTION IN FRANCE Contested: Ø the theory of the social contract Ø the theory of popular rule. ØAn artificial fiction is the will of the majority ØThe theory of human rights is based on fictions. Ø The supposed equality of people is also a fiction. popular sovereignty is "the most false, immoral, malicious doctrine that has ever been preached to the people" q Abstract ideas of freedom lead to anarchy, and through it to tyranny. q Any social order arises as a result of a long historical work that affirms stability, traditions, customs q All this is the most valuable legacy of the ancestors, which must be carefully preserved. q the state, society, law are not invented by man, but are created as a result of a long evolution, they cannot be rebuilt at the will of people.

CONSERVATIVE IDEOLOGY ON THE FRENCH REVOLUTION REFLECTIONS ON FRANCE JOSEPH DE MESTRE q A man who can change everything, but cannot create or change anything for the better without God's help, imagined himself as a source of supreme power and wanted to do everything himself. q For this, God punished people, saying - do it! q And the revolution, God's punishment, destroyed the entire political order, perverted the moral laws. q History shows that revolutions always produce more evil than the one they want to correct.

EVALUATION OF THE REVOLUTION IN I. KANT'S METAPHYSICS OF MORALS METHODS OF IMPLEMENTING CHANGES REFORM AND REVOLUTION "CHANGES IN THE FAULTY STATE ORGANIZATION, WHICH ARE SOMETIMES REQUIRED, CAN BE MADE ONLY BY THE SOVEREIGN, NOT THE REFORM BY THE SOVEREIGN WAY." “The revolution of a talented people, taking place before our eyes, may end in success or failure, may be so full of disasters and atrocities that a sane person, even in the hope of a happy outcome, would not dare to start such an expensive experiment a second time - and yet this revolution , meets in the hearts of all viewers. . . sympathy "" A citizen of the state, and, moreover, with the permission of the sovereign himself, should have the right to openly express his opinion about which of the orders of the sovereign seem to him unfair in relation to society ... ". Public opinion has the right to refuse to support a tyrant; placed in conditions of moral isolation and fearing a spontaneous rebellion, he will be forced to heed the voice of the people, comply with existing laws or reform them if they need to be corrected

The role of revolutions in assessing the ideology of classical liberalism. Alexis de Tocqueville THE OLD ORDER AND THE REVOLUTION 1856 The revolution was not to change the character of our civilization, stop its progressive development, change the essence of the fundamental laws underlying human societies in our West. If we consider the Revolution itself, clearing it of the accidental stratifications that have modified its image in different periods and in different countries, we will see that its only result was the destruction of the political institutions that for many centuries reigned supreme over the majority of European peoples and are usually called feudal, and replacing them with a more uniform and simple political system, the basis of which is the equality of conditions. The revolution was least of all an accidental event. And although it took the world by surprise, it was nevertheless the end of a long work, the swift and stormy end of a work over which ten generations had labored.

Theoretical concept of revolution by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels German ideology (1846) Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848) GERMAN IDEOLOGY: ü dialectics of interaction and development of productive forces and production relations ü the study of social formations, ü the doctrine of the state ü the theory of classes and class struggle ü the proletarian revolution is assessed as the result of development contradictions between the productive forces and production relations, the need for the conquest of political power by the proletariat is formulated, the idea of ​​the dictatorship of the proletariat is expressed in general form. . . revolution is necessary not only because it is impossible to overthrow the ruling class in any other way, but also because the overthrowing class can throw off all the old abomination and become capable of creating a new basis for society only in a revolution.

IN THE PLACE OF THE OLD BOURGEOIS SOCIETY WITH ITS CLASSES AND CLASS OPPOSITIONS COMES AN ASSOCIATION IN WHICH THE FREE DEVELOPMENT OF EVERYONE IS A CONDITION FOR THE FREE DEVELOPMENT OF ALL THE COMMUNIST PARTY MANIFESTO: The justification for the inevitability of the communist revolution. “The history of all hitherto existing societies has been the history of the struggle of classes” üModern society is increasingly splitting into two opposite, antagonistic classes - the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. ü The development of productive forces that took place under the rule and under the leadership of the bourgeoisie, and now has outgrown bourgeois relations and requires their elimination, ü The process of the formation and development of the proletariat, that objective force that will be forced to abolish bourgeois production relations that have become fetters for the further development of modern productive forces. Two general tasks of the dictatorship of the proletariat are formulated: to turn private ownership of the means of production into public ownership and to develop production as quickly as possible. üTotal characteristics of a communist society: class differences will disappear, public power will lose its political character, free development of everyone will be ensured.

THEORETICAL CONCEPT OF REVOLUTION IN THE HERITAGE OF CLASSICAL ANARCHISM STATE POWER HIERARCHY CENTRALIZATION BUREAUCRACY RIGHT FEDERALISM DECENTRALIZATION MUTUALITY FREE CONTRACT AND SELF-GOVERNMENT POLITICAL REVOLUTION SOCIAL REVOLUTION

What is property? Or a study on the principle of law and power 1840 Anarchy was understood as the abolition of all forms of human oppression, the replacement of a "political constitution" beneficial only to the ruling minority, a "social constitution" corresponding to justice and human nature P.-J. Proudhon Statehood and anarchy 1873 M. Bakunin "At present, for all the countries of the civilized world, there is only one world question, one world interest - the complete and final liberation of the proletariat from economic exploitation and state oppression. "Freedom without socialism is a privilege, injustice. . . Socialism without freedom is slavery and bestiality. The state and its role in history 1896 P. Kropotkin The goal of the revolution is the establishment of "stateless communism", a social system in the form of a free federal union and self-governing units (communities, territories, cities), based on the principle of voluntariness and “headlessness.” Collective conduct of production, collective distribution of resources, collectiveness of everything related to the economy, the service sector, and human relationships were assumed.

THE FIRST PROGRAM OF THE RSDLP IS ADOPTED BY THE 2nd CONGRESS OF 1903 The maximum program: determined the main task of the party - the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat in order to build a socialist society The minimum program: set the immediate task of overthrowing the tsarist autocracy and replacing it with a democratic republic

MAXIMUM PROGRAM Ø Replacing private ownership of the means of production and circulation with public property, Ø introducing a systematic organization of the social production process. To ensure the well-being and all-round development of all members of society, the social revolution of the proletariat will abolish the division of society into classes and thereby liberate all oppressed humanity, as it will put an end to all forms of exploitation of one part of society by another. The necessary condition for this social revolution is the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the conquest by the proletariat of such political power as will enable it to crush all resistance from the exploiters.

On the Slogan of the United States of Europe, 1915 Uneven economic and political development is an unconditional law of capitalism. From this it follows that the victory of socialism is possible initially in a few or even in one single capitalist country. The political form of society in which the proletariat wins by overthrowing the bourgeoisie will be a democratic republic that increasingly centralizes the forces of the proletariat of a given nation or given nations in the struggle against states that have not yet converted to socialism. The destruction of classes is impossible without the dictatorship of the oppressed class, the proletariat. The free unification of nations in socialism is impossible without a more or less long, stubborn struggle between the socialist republics and the backward states.

"APRIL THESES" The peculiarity of the current situation in Russia lies in the transition from the first stage of the revolution, which gave power to the bourgeoisie, to its second stage, which should place power in the hands of the proletariat and the poorest sections of the peasantry. Not a parliamentary republic, but a republic of Soviets of Workers', Laborers' and Peasants' Deputies throughout the country, from top to bottom. Elimination of police, army, bureaucracy. The salary of all officials, with the election and turnover of all of them at any time, is not higher than the average salary of a good worker.

"APRIL THESES" Confiscation of all landed estates. Nationalization of all lands in the country, Disposal of land by local Soviets of Laborers and Peasants' Deputies. The immediate merger of all the country's banks into one nationwide bank Not the "introduction" of socialism, but the transition to control by the soviets of workers' deputies over social production and distribution of products.

"STATE AND REVOLUTION" MARXISM'S TEACHING ABOUT THE STATE AND THE TASKS OF THE PROLETARIAT IN THE REVOLUTION The state is a product and manifestation of the irreconcilability of class contradictions. The state arises where, when and to the extent that class contradictions objectively cannot be reconciled. The state is an organ of class domination, an organ of the oppression of one class by another; The emancipation of the oppressed class is impossible not only without a violent revolution, but also without the destruction of the apparatus of state power which has been created by the ruling class.

"STATE AND REVOLUTION" The bourgeois state ... is destroyed by the proletariat in the revolution. The “special force for the suppression” of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie must be replaced by a “special force for the suppression” of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat (dictatorship of the proletariat). dictatorship of the proletariat The doctrine of the class struggle necessarily leads to the recognition of the political domination of the proletariat, its dictatorship, that is, a power not shared with anyone and based directly on the armed force of the masses.

"STATE AND REVOLUTION" The period of the overthrow of the bourgeoisie is inevitably a period of unprecedentedly fierce class struggle, unprecedentedly acute forms of its Revolution is, undoubtedly, the most authoritarian thing that is possible. A revolution is an act in which part of the population imposes its will on another part by means of guns, bayonets, cannons, i.e., extremely authoritarian means. And the victorious party is necessarily compelled to maintain its dominance by means of the fear which its weapons inspire in the reactionaries.

"STATE AND REVOLUTION" We set as our ultimate goal the destruction of the state, that is, of all organized and systematic violence, of all violence against people in general. Ø We do not expect the advent of such a social order, when the principle of subordination of the minority to the majority is not respected. Ø But, striving for socialism, we are convinced that it will develop into communism, and in connection with this, any need for violence against people in general, for subjugating one person to another, one part of the population to another part of it, will disappear, because people will get used to observing elementary conditions of society without violence and without subjugation.

Wilfredo Pareto Treatise on General Sociology 1916 üHistory is an arena of constant struggle between different types of elites for power. ü Elite circulation is necessary to maintain social balance ü If the elite turns out to be closed, that is, circulation does not occur or occurs too slowly, this leads to the degradation of the elite and its decline. üAt the same time, in the lower stratum, the number of individuals with the necessary traits for governing and capable of using violence to seize power is growing üThe revolution acts as a kind of complement to the circulation of elites. In a certain sense, the essence of the revolution consists in a sharp and violent change in the composition of the ruling elite. At the same time, as a rule, during the revolution, individuals from the lower strata are controlled by individuals from the higher strata, since the latter possess the intellectual qualities necessary for battle and are deprived of those qualities that individuals from the lower strata possess.

Pitirim Sorokin Sociology of the revolution 1925 1) 2) Causes of the revolution: growing suppression of basic instincts; their universal character; If the digestive reflex of a good part of the population is "suppressed" by hunger, If the instinct of self-preservation is "suppressed" If the reflex of collective self-preservation is "suppressed", their shrines are desecrated, their members are tormented If the need for housing, clothing, etc. is not satisfied at least in a minimal amount If the majority of the population is "suppressed" the sexual reflex in all its manifestations If the possessive instinct of the masses is "suppressed", poverty and deprivation prevail If people are faced, on the one hand, with insults, neglect, permanent and unfair disregard for their merits and achievements, and on the other hand, with an exaggeration of the merits of people who do not deserve it. If most people suppress their impulse to struggle and competition, creative work, the acquisition of various experiences, the need for freedom, then we have auxiliary conditions - the components of a revolutionary explosion.

Pitirim Sorokin Sociology of the Revolution 1925 Causes of the revolution: 3) If the government and the groups that guard the order are not able to prevent the collapse for a revolutionary explosion, it is also necessary that the social groups that act as guardians of the existing order would not have a sufficient arsenal of means to suppress destructive encroachments from below. When the forces of order are no longer able to carry out the practice of suppression, the revolution becomes a matter of time. By insufficiency and ineffectiveness, I mean the inability of the authorities and the ruling elite: a) to develop countermeasures against the pressure of repressed instincts, sufficient to achieve a state of social equilibrium; b) remove or at least weaken the conditions that produce "repression"; c) split and divide the repressed mass into groups, setting them against each other, in order to weaken them mutually; d) direct the "exit" of suppressed impulses into a different, non-revolutionary channel.

Pitirim Sorokin Sociology of the Revolution 1925 The atmosphere of pre-revolutionary epochs always strikes the observer with the powerlessness of the authorities and the degeneration of the ruling privileged classes. They are sometimes unable to perform the elementary functions of power, not to mention the forceful resistance to the revolution. Nor are they capable of dividing and weakening the opposition, curtailing repressions, or organizing the "exit" of repressed impulses into a non-revolutionary channel. Almost all pre-revolutionary governments carry the characteristic features of anemia, impotence, indecision, incompetence, confusion, frivolous indiscretion, and on the other hand - licentiousness, corruption, immoral sophistication ...

Pitirim Sorokin Sociology of the Revolution 1925 Two stages of the revolutionary process: the first stage of any deep revolution does not eliminate the very fact of suppression, but, on the contrary, only strengthens it. The behavior of the masses, now controlled only by elementary unconditioned reflexes, becomes uncontrollable. Hunger, instead of decreasing, increases. Human security becomes even more problematic; Mortality increases catastrophically; As a result, the self-preservation reflex is even more suppressed. Expropriations, starting with the rich, spread to the entire population, which further suppress the possessive instinct. Sexual permissiveness suppresses the sexual instinct. The despotism of the new ruling class suppresses the instinct of freedom. People are becoming less and less adaptive to the environment and relationships. Their cumulative assessment of everything that is happening can be expressed in the words: "It is impossible to live like this any longer, we need order, order at any cost."

Pitirim Sorokin Sociology of the Revolution 1925 Two stages of the revolutionary process: And now the demand for unlimited freedom is replaced by a thirst for order; the praise of the "liberators" from the old regime is replaced by the praise of the "liberators" from the revolution, in other words, the organizers of order. "Order!" and "Long live the creators of order!" - such is the general impulse of the second stage of the revolution. Fatigue acts from within, giving rise to individual apathy, indifference, mass lethargy. All people are in this state, and there is nothing easier than subordinating them to some energetic group of people. And what was practically impossible at the first stage of the revolution is now carried out with ease. The population, which is an inert mass, is a convenient material for social "shaping" by a new "repressor". Thus, it is the revolution that inevitably creates all the conditions for the emergence of despots, tyrants and coercion of the masses.

The First Wave in the Development of the Sociology of Revolution L. Edwards "The Natural History of the Revolution" (1927). E. Lederer "On Revolutions" (1936) C. Brinton "Anatomy of a Revolution" (1938) D. Pitti "The Revolutionary Process" (1938) The Second Wave in the Development of the Sociology of Revolution J. Davis "Toward a Theory of Revolution" (1962), T. R. Garr "Why People Revolt" (1970), C. Johnson "Revolutionary Change" (1966), N. Smelser "The Theory of Collective Behavior" (1963) The Third Wave in the Development of the Sociology of Revolution With Huntington "Political Order in Transforming Societies" ( 1968) and “Revolutions and Collective Violence” (1975) G. Eckstein “The Etiology of Internal War” (1965), E. Oberschal “Growing Expectations and Political Disorder” (1969) E. Muller “The Applicability of Possibility Theory to the Analysis of Political Violence” ( 1972), B. Salert "Revolutions and revolutionaries" (1976), T. Skokpol "Explaining revolutions: in search of a social-structuralist approach" (1976), "States and social revolutions" (1979)

The definition of a revolution in the writings of representatives of the third generation: “a quick, fundamental and violent change, produced by the internal forces of society, of the dominant values ​​and myths of this society, its political institutions, social structure, leadership, government activities and politics” S. Huntington and class structures of society ... accompanied and partly carried out through uprisings of the masses with a class basis "T. Skokpol Signs of revolutions: 1) fundamental, comprehensive changes in the social order 2) Large masses of mobilized people are involved 3) The revolutionary process is always accompanied by violence

S. Eisenstadt Revolution and the transformation of societies 1978 Ø The most common image of the revolution. . . has several main Ø Ø Ø components: violence, novelty and the generality of change. Revolution is characterized as the most intense, violent and conscious process of all social movements. They see it as the ultimate expression of free will and deep feelings, a manifestation of extraordinary organizational abilities and a highly developed ideology of social protest. Emphasis is placed on a utopian or emancipatory ideal based on the symbolism of equality, progress, freedom, and on the belief that revolutions create a new and better social order. social factors like the class struggle, the involvement of large social groups in the social movement and their political organization.

The results of the revolution appear to be multilateral. Ø Firstly, this is a violent change in the existing political regime. . . Ø Secondly, the replacement of an incapable ruling elite or ruling class by others. Ø Thirdly, far-reaching changes in all institutional areas, primarily in the economy and class relations - changes that are aimed at modernizing most aspects of social life, at economic development and industrialization, centralization and expansion of the circle participating in the political process. Ø Fourth, a radical break with the past. . . Ø Fifthly, they believe that revolutions carry out not only institutional and organizational changes, but also make changes in morality and education, that they create or give birth to a new person.

"modern definition of revolution: it is an attempt to reshape political institutions and give a new justification for political power in society, accompanied by formal or informal mobilization of the masses and such non-institutionalized actions that undermine existing power" Jack Goldstone "Toward a fourth generation theory of revolution" 2001 Typologies of revolutions: Ø Revolutions , which, along with political institutions, transform economic and. social structures are called great; Those that change only political institutions are called political revolutions. ØRevolutions associated with the independent action of the lower classes are called social revolutions, Øwhile large-scale reforms carried out by elites who directly control the mobilization of the masses are sometimes called elitist revolutions or revolutions from above. Another typology is based on the guiding ideology of revolutionary movements, distinguishing between: liberal or constitutional revolutions, Ø communist revolutions, Ø Islamic revolutions

Velvet revolutions of 1989 Ø Ø Ø In 1989, revolutions took place in many countries of Eastern Europe, which led to the liquidation of the "socialist camp" . June 4th. Parliamentary elections in Poland, which allowed the opposition parties on 24 August. The government of Poland was headed by the representative of the opposition Tadeusz Mazowiecki. September 18th. During the negotiations within the framework of the "round table" between the Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party and the opposition, a decision was made to introduce a multi-party system in Hungary. Ø 18 October. The Hungarian Parliament adopted about 100 constitutional amendments regulating the transition to parliamentary democracy. Ø 23 October. The Hungarian Republic was proclaimed in Budapest and defined itself as a free, democratic, independent state governed by the rule of law. Ø 9 November. The Council of Ministers of the GDR decided to open the border with the FRG and West Berlin. Ø 10 November. The head of the People's Republic of Bulgaria and the Bulgarian Communist Party, Todor Zhivkov, resigned from the post of general secretary and member of the Politburo. Ø 17 November. The Parliament of Bulgaria elected Mladenov the head of the State Council of the country. Ø 28 November. In Czechoslovakia, a decision was made to create a new government and to abolish the provision enshrined in the constitution on the leading role of the Communist Party. Ø 29 December Václav Havel is elected President of Czechoslovakia. Ø 22 December. In Romania, the head of state and the Romanian Communist Party, N. Ceausescu, was overthrown. I. Iliescu, the leader of the National Salvation Front, became President of Romania Ø October 3, 1990 - German unification

CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES OF THE "VELVET REVOLUTIONS" OF 1989-1990 q "The internal source of the modern revolution is the counter-elite: an active, power-hungry stratum of those who were left behind as a result of the clan struggle" . q “Velvet” revolutions in all Eastern European countries took place almost simultaneously, despite the different levels of development of countries, different levels of social contradictions and, most importantly, different strengths of their leaders. q They were carried out according to a similar scenario in the year when, in the course of active negotiations between Gorbachev and the United States, the fate of the USSR was decided in principle. q The most important civilizational condition for the “velvet” revolutions common to the countries of Eastern Europe was the fact that the inhabitants of these countries were drawn to the West. One of the manifestations associated with the change in the system of power in the region should be considered the belief of Eastern Europeans in their identity with Western Europe. q A feature of "velvet" revolutions is the fact that supporters of different socio-philosophical principles merge in them. They were united by a common dislike for state power and the political regime, "keeping" them in the anti-Western "Soviet bloc". q A key factor in mass support for revolutionary change was the potential for material gain. q Destroying the "authoritarian bureaucratic system", the population of Eastern European countries hoped for a sharp increase in opportunities for social mobility

"COLOR REVOLUTIONS" 2003 - Rose Revolution in Georgia. 2004 - Orange Revolution in Ukraine. 2005 - Tulip revolution in Kyrgyzstan. 2005 - Cedar Revolution in Lebanon. 2006 - An attempt at the Vasilkovo revolution in Belarus. 2008 - Attempted color revolution in Armenia 2009 - Color revolution in Moldova 2010 - Melon revolution - the second Kyrgyz revolution 2010 -2011 - Jasmine revolution (or Date) in Tunisia 2011 - Melon revolution (or Twitter, Date) in Egypt

CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES OF “COLOR” REVOLUTIONS q The form of revolution is mass rallies, demonstrations and strikes, which are held by the opposition after elections are held, according to the results of which the opposition is declared the loser. q The opposition in this case claims that there were violations of the electoral legislation that distorted the will of the people. q Mass protests lead either to a second vote (Ukraine) or to the forcible seizure of government buildings by a crowd (Yugoslavia, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan) and the flight of state leaders, followed by new elections. In both cases, the opposition comes to power. q The revolution is taking place under anti-corruption and radical democratic slogans. q The revolution is preceded by the formation of youth organizations that form the “field detachments of the revolution”. q The revolution is emphatically bloodless. Hence the characteristic brand of the revolution - a non-aggressive color or flower. However … q The restraint of the power structures plays a decisive role in the success of the revolution q Pro-American politics after the revolution

Gene Sharp: From Dictatorship to Democracy. Conceptual Foundations of Liberation D. Sharp's book was published in Bangkok in 1993. It became a guide for the organizers of "color revolutions" This book details the tactics and strategy of subversion within "anti-democratic" states. What force can the opposition mobilize to be sufficient to destroy the anti-democratic regime, its military and police system? A common feature of these examples of the destruction or weakening of dictatorships is the decisive mass application of political defiance by the population. A dictatorial regime has characteristics that make it very sensitive to skillfully applied political defiance. The effective overthrow of the dictatorship with minimal casualties requires the fulfillment of four primary tasks: §The resolve, self-confidence and resistance skills of the oppressed population must be strengthened; §It is necessary to strengthen the independent social groups and institutions of the oppressed people; § It is necessary to create a powerful force of resistance; § A wise strategic plan for liberation must be developed and clearly implemented.