Moscow, Nauka Publishing House. 1975. 350 pp. The print run is 2550. Price 1 rub. 46 kopecks.

The history of Russian absolutism has long attracted the attention of researchers. Soviet scientists made a significant contribution to its study. In their works, many aspects of this topic were considered to one degree or another .1 However, the discussion on the history of absolutism in Russia2 that took place in the late 60s and early 70s showed not only the full significance and relevance of this topic, but also the need for its further in-depth development. It revealed differences in views on the class nature and evolution of autocracy and the need to create works that would summarize the accumulated material on the basis of the Marxist-Leninist concept. Therefore, the appearance of the monograph by the senior researcher of the Institute of State and Law of the USSR Academy of Sciences A. M. Davidovich is quite natural.

Unlike earlier studies, the reviewed work is characterized by a multi-faceted coverage of the topic, an integrated approach to its solution. Based on Lenin's assessments of autocracy, the author aims to determine the economic and socio-political foundations, as well as to study the class essence and evolution of the tsarist monarchy in the era of monopoly capitalism. This also determines the structure of the book.

1 E. D. Chermensky. Bourgeoisie and Tsarism in the First Russian Revolution, Moscow, 1970; V. Ya. Laverychev. Tsarism and the Working question in Russia (1861-1917). Moscow, 1972; Yu. B. Solov'ev. Autocracy and nobility at the end of the XIX century L. 1973, et al.

2 See History of the USSR, 1968, NN 2, 4, 5; 1969, NN 1, 3, 6; 1970, NN 1, 4; 1971, NN 1, 2, 3, 4; 1972, No. 4; Voprosy Istorii, 1968, No. 5; 1971, N 7.

page 168

The advantage of the monograph is that it is directed against the fabrications of modern bourgeois researchers of Russian absolutism, who show great interest in this topic. They study the problem of autocracy in line with the anti-Marxist concept of the illegality of the Great October Socialist Revolution. Thus, the American Sovietologist A. Meyer stated that the" revolutionary coup "in Russia was not objectively overdue, and the "vast majority" of the population in the country believed that their" needs and hopes " could be met by tsarism3 . Another bourgeois historian, T. Esper, asserts that the writings of the founders of Marxism do not contain any definite judgments about Russian absolutism. 4 In contrast to the bourgeois historiography, A. M. Davidovich proves that V. I. Lenin, who relied on the works of K - Marx and F. P. Lenin, had the following ideas: According to Engels, there was a coherent concept on this issue. The monograph notes that today this concept, created in the fire of class battles, is "a sharp weapon in the fight against bourgeois ideology, anti-communism and revisionism, the key to solving controversial issues in the history of the state and law of tsarist Russia in the XVII-XX centuries" (p. 27).

"The essence of tsarist absolutism cannot be understood without clarifying its concrete economic basis," the author rightly writes (p.33). The book contains Lenin's idea that the main material basis of the autocracy was the landowner's land ownership. The focus of this part of the work is directed against modern bourgeois historians, who have accepted the point of view of representatives of the ruling classes of Russia that landownership was not a brake on the socio-economic and political development of the country. A. M. Davidovich convincingly shows that, despite the reduction of landowning by landlords (a process that is greatly exaggerated and elevated to the rank of the main phenomenon in agriculture by Sovietologists), serfdom latifundia in fact remained the economic foundation of autocracy even during the period of imperialism. At the same time, the author notes that land ownership by landlords already existed in the conditions of increasingly deep penetration of capitalist relations into the country's agriculture. He does not agree with the opinion of some researchers [5], who believe that the agrarian system of Russia up to 1917 It was semi-feudal, and the serfdom system in the village was dominant. The author's position reflects the current level of development of Soviet historical science, which is based on Lenin's theory of two ways of developing capitalism in agriculture.

The author sees the second economic pillar of autocracy in the state-capitalist economy, "the like of which no state knew at that time" (p.42). However, since the question of state capitalism as one of the economic pillars of autocracy is debatable, it requires further elaboration and, above all, the involvement of Leninist assessments.

A. M. Davidovich also examines the question of the socio-political basis of tsarism in the era of imperialism. At the same time, specific material reveals Lenin's provisions about three struggling political camps (government, bourgeois-liberal and revolutionary - democratic, led by the working class, led by the Bolshevik party). The author comes to the correct conclusion that the social and political basis of tsarism remained the noble-feudal-landowner class, which created its own parties and organizations. At the same time, it provides a full range of forces that served as the socio-political support of tsarism. Among these forces, he points out (which is not always done in our research) the Orthodox Church, as well as the feudal elements and clergy of the national fringes of the Empire (pp. 62-93).

A. M. Davidovich's decision to characterize two other political camps-the liberal - bourgeois and the revolutionary - democratic-and their relations with each other and with tsarism is legitimate. Here, as we think, the most difficult task facing the author was the question:

3 A. Meyer. Communism. N. Y. 1967, p. 30.

4 Th. Esper. Recent Soviet Views of Russian Absolutism. "Canadian- American Slavic Studies", v. VI, N 4, Winter 1972, p. 621.

5 See " Questions of the History of Capitalist Russia. The problem of multiplicity". Sverdlovsk. 1972, p. 91.

page 169

on the political role of the big bourgeoisie and its place in the system of the three camps. Speaking about the class nature of the liberal camp, A. M. Davidovich emphasizes its bourgeois character (p. 95). However, it is not clear from the text of the book which groups of the bourgeoisie were part of the liberal camp. The author's position on the place that he assigns to the financial oligarchy and the merchant class is contradictory. The questions of the social structure of the Russian bourgeoisie and its political face are not among those finally solved and exhausted for research in the Soviet scientific literature.

Defining the composition of the revolutionary-democratic camp, A. M. Davidovich fairly criticizes the opinion of some Soviet historians (A. Ya. Avrekha, N. I. Pavlenko) that the peasantry was the social support of tsarism (pp. 128-134).6 "Objective conditions," he writes, " forced the peasants to wage a decisive struggle for extermination all remnants of serfdom in the land ownership and political system, for the overthrow of the autocracy. And the peasantry waged this struggle. It was not and could not be the social basis of tsarism" (p. 153). The claims that the peasantry was the mainstay of tsarism do not agree with the fact that V. I. Lenin put forward the idea of a union of the working class and the peasantry even before the 1905 revolution, when this union became a reality.

The book attaches great importance to highlighting the role of the proletariat as the hegemon of the national struggle against autocracy. The working class's ally in this struggle was the peasantry; the liberal bourgeoisie, while claiming leadership in the revolutionary movement, was more afraid of revolution than of reaction, and consequently tended to make a deal with tsarism. The author rightly notes that only the selfless struggle of the proletariat and the peasantry forced tsarism to make concessions. In this connection, it should be noted that it would be desirable to reveal more clearly the role of the peasantry in the revolution of 1905-1907. In addition, the paper does not clearly describe the role in the revolution of 1905-1907. I and II State Dumas and the activities of parties and groups in them.

The epicenter of the book is the problem of the correlation between the class essence of autocracy and its evolution, because the correct interpretation of this problem largely depends on understanding the true causes of the fall of autocracy in Russia. A.M. Davidovich concludes that the autocracy, undergoing a certain evolution under the influence of the class struggle, remained until its overthrow "an instrument of the dictatorship of one class, feudal lords exercised their political rule "with the support of the bourgeoisie, which was mortally frightened by the revolution of 1905 - 1907" (p.228). The monograph also shows that "the autocracy was, to a certain extent, an independently organized political force" (ibid.). At the same time, it should be noted that the author's thesis about the bourgeoisie's "support" for the political rule of the feudal lords is somewhat abstract. The author notes that in the context of the growing class struggle in the era of monopoly capitalism, the existence of a feudal political superstructure, large landowners ' land ownership, increasingly aggravated the antagonistic contradictions in the country, and made the complete fiasco of the tsarist regime natural.

Considering the question of the class essence of autocracy in the era of imperialism, the author reveals the groundlessness of noble and bourgeois theories about the superclass nature of Russian absolutism, which are galvanized by modern anti-communist literature. The book specifically explores the class character of the main components of autocracy. Based on the documentary material, the paper confirms that not only the tsar, the royal family and the court camarilla, but also the Council of Ministers as the head of the bureaucracy were, in essence, organs of the dictatorship of the feudal-noble-landowner class and expressed the interests of the "first class" first of all, and then only to a certain extent the interests of the bourgeoisie. However, the question of the composition of the higher bureaucracy discussed in this book requires a more in-depth study.

The paper contains serious criticism

6 This position is also criticized in the works of: V. I. Buganov. On the ideology of participants in peasant wars in Russia. "Questions of history", 1974,. N " 1; G. A. Arutyunov. The working-class Movement in the period of a new Revolutionary Upsurge in 1910-1914, Moscow, 1975, pp. 11-12, etc.

page 170

Avrekh's point of view, according to which absolutism in Russia has undergone changes in its development that allow us to speak about its bourgeois or semi - bourgeois nature (pp. 207-210).7 The question that the author asks his opponents is relevant: if absolutism became such, then why were two bourgeois-democratic revolutions needed, the main goal of which was to destroy the autocracy? (page 342). At the same time, the opinion held in a number of works [8] that the autocracy has not undergone any changes at all, that there has been no restriction of its rights (p.284) is also refuted. Such an assertion means in practice belittling the significance of the revolution of 1905-1907, which, according to V. I. Lenin, broke a "gap" in the old autocracy .9 The author emphasizes that Russia had a constitution (although more or less fictitious) and a parliament (in the form of an almost powerless State Duma). However, the country did not have a bourgeois monarchy, as Russian liberals claimed. Describing the institution of constitutional monarchy and pointing out the fundamental differences between this institution and the autocracy with a constitution and parliament, the author defends Lenin's idea that the autocracy in Russia, without changing its feudal essence, took only the second step on the road to bourgeois monarchy in the twentieth century (pp. 286, 289-291).

For the first time in the literature, the monograph reveals the concept of "constitutional autocracy". The author concludes that this concept, on the one hand, emphasizes the crucial fact that autocracy has survived, and on the other hand, it means that under the pressure of the popular revolution, tsarism had to put on the constitutional costume that it hated, disguise itself with parliamentary forms. As a result, "with constitutionalism in words, absolutism in deeds was preserved" (p.345).

A. M. Davidovich emphasizes the necessity of making concessions to the autocracy. There is a claim in the literature [10] that tsarism wanted to introduce reforms , but could not, because the revolutionary situation prevented it. Criticizing this opinion, the author points out that tsarism never wanted to voluntarily carry out reforms, but went to them under the influence of changes in the economic system and class struggle. Despite attempts at renewal, there was a certain evolution in the period 1905-1907. (the author counts four stages of this evolution), tsarism was not able to solve the "cursed" questions facing the country. Hence the inevitability of the second bourgeois-democratic revolution, which buried the tsarist autocracy in 1917.

7 For criticism of this opinion, see also: A. N. Sakharov. Historical factors of the formation of Russian absolutism. "History of the USSR", 1971, N 1; I. A. Fedosov. Social essence and evolution of Russian absolutism. Voprosy Istorii, 1971, No. 7, p. 48.

8 S. V. Yushkov. Istoriya gosudarstva i prava SSSR. ch. 1. M. 1950, p. 605; "Istoriya gosudarstva i prava SSSR". Ch. 1. Sverdlovsk. 1971, p. 369, et al.

9 See V. I. Lenin. PSS. Vol. 17, p. 342.

10 A. J. Avrekh. Stolypin and the Third Duma, Moscow, 1968, pp. 510-511.

page 171

Permanent link to this publication: