The national component of development projects in the works of Russian liberal populists (1870-1890)

This article analyzes the views of liberal populists in the state and prospects of inter-ethnic relationsin the Russian Empire. Revealed significant differences between them in such fundamental issues as the recognition of a consolidating factorof ethnicity, the role of ethnic groups in historical development. Liberal populism, definite shape as an independent during the early 1870s.Was very uneven. The range of views on major issues of public life was significant.Consideration of the views of NK Michael's on thenational perspective reveals their proximity views of representatives of the radical wing populism. Denying the possibility of national unityby the class fragmentation of society and the increasing trend to an increase in the importance of social solidarity over ethnic for him wasunconditional. No nation but the people - that is, the set of exploited classes were for him the object of protection, while the subject ofhistorical development. The evolution of the Populists on the national question is more noticeable in S.N.Yuzhakova, NV Shelgunov, I.Kablitz. In their work the national discourse is formed as an independent and not derived from the social. This is evident when consideringtheir treatment of nationalism.The principle was the rejection of the idea of the withering away of nations in a clear perspective and recognition of the importance ofnational identity in the future of society. This led to building projects, the development of Russia as a multiethnic state in the existingborders. Became urgent task of working out the forms and ideas that unite multi-ethnic and poly-confessional society.S.N.Yuzhakovexpressed the hope that Russia was behind the European nations could emerge as a nation came to an understanding of the need for unity forthe joint development of the path of progress. In the interpretation I. Kablitz, Russia emerged as a result of the long struggle of the peopletogether, united into one state. Despite the seeming divergence of opinion, the Populists offered the same design. The Russian people wererallying point in the "Nation" Yuzhakov, and the "state" Kablitz. Polyethnicity both was not an obstacle or a state of national unity, so theforced assimilation was not seen as a way to achieve it. But since the idea of unconditional postulated dominance of the Russian ethnos as themost developed and numerous, it was considered an unavoidable natural assimilation, and in terms of promoting the general progress ofRussia, a positive development. The desire to preserve the ethnic language, culture, traditions are not forbidden, and even determined by thefactor in maintaining stability of the entire community. At the same time categorically rejected the desire for political independence,interpreted as separatism, and harmful to the nation, and ultimately for the peoples themselves. As a result, it became apparent convergenceof this variant of the populist tradition of the Russian liberal discourse in shaping the perspectives of national-state structure of Russia andthe principles of international relations.

Keywords

Authors

References