"Regionals" and "sovereigns": another aspect of the confrontation In the history of the civil war in Russia, there is one extremely interesting moment, which almost never falls into the field of view of researchers and which is directly and directly related to

Siberian regionalists

SIBERIAN REGIONS

representatives of the public.-political. flow in the environment sib. bourgeois and petty-bourgeois intelligentsia (mid-50s of the 19th century - 1920). Regionalism originated in St. Petersburg. mug sib. students (G. N. Potanin, N. M. Yadrintsev, S. S. Shashkov, N. I. Naumov, R. N. Usov, etc.). In the 60s. S. o. stood for revolution. fight against autocracy, democratic. freedom. Upon returning to Siberia (1863), they headed and intensified the work of the Sib. circles, combining illegal and legal forms of activity. Actively spoke out in defense of "foreigners", against colonial oppression. Acting in contact with politically exiled Russians and Poles, S. o. prepared an uprising in Siberia. Viewing Siberia as a political and economic colony of Russia, and Siberians - as a new sib. "nation", individual S. o. came to erroneous conclusions about the special ways of development of Siberia, put forward reaction. the slogan of the separation of Siberia from Russia. For S.'s activity about. 70s - early 80s characterized by a fascination with populism. In the 80s - the 1st floor. 90s there was an evolution of S. about. towards the bourgeois liberalism. In the beginning. 20th century in conditions of acute demarcation class. and political forces in Siberia among S. o. a right-wing, Kadet-monarchist trend arose (A. V. Adrianov, A. N. Hattenberger, N. N. Kozmin, and others) and a left one. The latter (E. E. Kolosov, P. Ya. Derber, and others) were close to the Socialist-Revolutionary Party. S. o. participated in the preparation of antisov. rebellion in Siberia. In the future, they actively collaborated with A.V. Kolchak, and with the restoration of Soviet power in Siberia, they fled abroad. Some S. about. (Potanin, Yadrintsev, Kozmin, P. M. Golovachev) made a significant contribution to the development of culture and science in Siberia - history, archeology, ethnography, geography.

The activity of S. o., as an extremely complex phenomenon, is assessed differently in the ist. literature: some historians (S. F. Koval, N. P. Mitina) consider the regionalism of the early stage of the revolutionary-democratic. flow, other researchers (M. G. Sesyunina, I. M. Razgon, etc.) - a kind of bourgeois. liberalism.

Lit.: Vetoshkin M.K., Sib. regionalism, "Modern World", 1913, No 3; Krusser G.V., Sib. regionals, (Novosib.), 1931; Gudoshnikov M., Class. the nature of regionalism, "Future Siberia", 1931, No 1; Stepanov N. L., P. A. Slovtsov (At the origins of Siberian regionalism), L., 1935; Sesyunina M. G., To the question of the origin of the Sib. regionalism, in collection: Questions of the history of Siberia, c. 2, Tomsk, 1965; Razgon I. M., Plotnikova M. E., G. N. Potanin in the years of socialist. revolution and civil wars in Siberia, ibid.; Mitina N.P., In the depths of Sib. Rud, M., 1966; Koval S. F., The nature of societies. movements of the 60s. 19th century in Siberia, in Sat.: Socio-political. movement in Siberia in 1861-1917, Novosib., 1967.

L. M. Goryushkin. Novosibirsk.

Soviet historical encyclopedia. - M.: Soviet Encyclopedia. Ed. E. M. Zhukova. 1973-1982 .

See what "SIBERIAN REGIONS" is in other dictionaries:

Representatives of the socio-political movement of the 2nd half. 19 early 20th century (G. N. Potanin, N. M. Yadrintsev and others); supporters of the autonomy of Siberia ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

Representatives of the socio-political movement of the 2nd half. 19 early 20th century (G. N. Potanin, N. M. Yadrintsev and others); supporters of the autonomy of Siberia. Political Science: Dictionary Reference. comp. Prof. floor of sciences Sanzharevsky I.I.. 2010 ... Political science. Dictionary.

Representatives of the socio-political movement of the second half of the XIX - early XX centuries. (G. N. Potanin, N. M. Yadrintsev and others); supporters of the autonomy of Siberia. * * * SIBERIAN REGIONAL SIBERIAN REGIONAL, representatives of the socio-political ... ... encyclopedic Dictionary

Representatives of the socio-political trend among the Siberian bourgeois and petty-bourgeois intelligentsia (mid-50s of the 19th century, beginning of the 20th century). Regionalism originated in the St. Petersburg circle of Siberian students (G. N. Potanin, N. M ...

- ... Wikipedia

I Siberia is a territory that occupies most of Northern Asia from the Urals in the west to the mountain ranges of the Pacific watershed in the east and from the shores of the Arctic Ocean in the north to the hilly steppes of the Kazakh SSR and the border with the MPR and China in the south. ... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

Ermak Timofeevich- (date of birth unknown 6.08. 1584 or 1585) Cossack ataman, leader of the campaign in Siberia, as a result of which the Siberian Khanate of Sheibanid Kuchum broke up and the beginning was laid. annexation of Siberia to Rus. gos wu. According to popular belief…… Ural Historical Encyclopedia

Let each region kindle its own sun, and then our earth will be illuminated.
G. N. Potanin.

Regionalism and regionalism: the evolution of the views of the Siberian society on the way of the incorporation of Siberia into the all-Russian space

The problem of the relationship between Russia and Siberia (center and region (outskirts, periphery), metropolis and colony in various interpretations) ultimately comes down to finding an optimal model for coordinating political, socio-economic, cultural and environmental interests within the framework of an emerging federal state. It has become a bargaining chip in the struggle of various groups, including regional ones, for power in the post-Soviet era. Meanwhile, back in October 1991, the draft constitution of the Russian Federation was promulgated, which, in our opinion, proposed the optimal form of a federal structure, the constituent elements of which were to be national-state (republics) and regional (territorial) formations (1). Soon the project was forgotten, and the federal structure began to be interpreted exclusively from the positions of the national ones. Even in the collective monograph R.G. Abdulatipova, L.F. Boltenkova, Yu.F. Yarov, who claims to be a comprehensive analysis of federalism in Russia, it is only about the relationship between the central authorities and various nationalities (2). In turn, federalism for us is the same necessary element of a qualitatively new state of society as democracy and the market. Such a territorially extended state cannot be considered civilized in the conditions of a rigidly unitary structure of power structures.

At the same time, the identified problem can be conditionally divided into a number of large blocks: the place and role of Siberia in the Russian state(outskirts or colonies), the formation of the concept of Russian federalism (regionalism) and specific developments in the incorporation of the region into the all-Russian space by the local society from the 18th century. and until the establishment of Soviet power here (1920).

As for the first bloc, until 1917 the government pursued a policy of “state feudalism” in relation to Siberia, the constituent elements of which were:

Firstly, the monopoly on the land and natural resources of the region, the exploitation of which was considered the exclusive right of the state or the Cabinet of His Imperial Majesty. Siberia practically did not know private ownership of land.

Secondly, predominantly “penalty” colonization and restriction of the free people until the beginning of the 20th century.

Thirdly, the agrarian and raw material nature of the development of the economy, which is weakly included in market relations. Non-equivalent nature of the exchange of goods. According to the data for 1884, the trade turnover of the Irbit Fair, the largest for the region, looked as follows. European goods were sold, mainly manufactories for 41,932 thousand rubles, Siberian goods (furs, leather, lard, fat, bristles, honey, wax, oil, pine nuts, etc.) for 11,836 thousand rubles and transit Chinese tea for another 7553 thousand rubles. “Thus,” the observer concludes, “the entire country that produces raw materials is constantly in debt” (3). And even at the beginning of the twentieth century. tsarist measures did not go beyond increasing profitability Agriculture and the simplest processing of raw materials, the export of which until 1911 was artificially restrained by the Chelyabinsk tariff change.

Fourthly, the weak development of market relations gave rise to a specific position of the local bourgeoisie, comprador in essence, who amassed capital thanks to monopoly and bondage, caused by the arbitrariness of the local administration and non-equivalent exchange (“the Siberian merchant is the agent of the manufacturer” (4).

Fifth, the arbitrariness of administrative structures formed by immigrants from European Russia, not connected with the interests of the population and considering the “Siberian service” as a way of personal enrichment. “The history of the Siberian administration,” noted S.S. Shashkov is a long story about the suffering of the region. Siberia did not know serfdom, but it knew administrative lack of rights” (5).

Sixth, the weak development of education, science and culture, causing a massive outflow of young people to universities in the European part of the country and hindering the formation of local intelligentsia.

These circumstances were supplemented by the inequality of the population of the region in terms of civil rights in comparison with the inhabitants of the central provinces. Judicial reform extends to Siberia in 1897, and zemstvo institutions remained the subject of dreams of Siberians until 1917. Summarizing all this, in one of the publications, we concluded “about the special status of the Siberian territories within the Russian state until 1917, close in position towards the colony, primarily economic” (6). Analyzing the economic situation in Siberia already in the twentieth century. two prominent specialists V.V. Kuleshov and V.A. Kryukov came to the following: “Already at the very initial stage of the formation of the foundations of a multi-structural economy built on market principles, the economy of Siberia (both Western and Eastern) faced problems that turned out to be “eternal” for it. These problems include:

– non-equivalent exchange in relations with the metropolis; – discriminatory nature of prices and tariffs in relation to Siberian producers; - fiscal - not focused on creating conditions for economic growth - the financial and economic policy of the metropolis” (7).

Colossal size and multinational character Russian Empire determined, on the one hand, the formation of the concept of domestic federalism (regionalism), and, on the other hand, gave impetus to attempts to implement it. The founder of Siberian separatism is considered the first local governor, Prince M.P. Gagarin, who was hanged in 1721 by order of Peter I "as a bribe-taker and ruiner of the people." What, we note in passing, the current wording. But the historian M. Pylyaev rightly noted that “at that time Menshikov, Bruce and Apraksin also stole, but they were not hanged.” In fact, "the tsar heard rumors about Gagarin's intention to become a sovereign in Siberia independent of Russia." The bogey of separatism has long been a headache for the St. Petersburg authorities. In particular, in 1831, the Archbishop of Irkutsk Iriney Nesterovich, according to the words of the official Voinov, reported that the chairman of the local provincial government, the exiled Decembrist A.N. Muravyov “wants to be a Siberian prince” (8).

Rumors remained rumors, but in 1863 S.S. Popov, S.S. Shashkov and N.M. Yadrintsev, in handwritten proclamations to the “Siberian Patriots” and “Patriots of Siberia”, called on the Siberians to revolt in order to form a “Republic of the United Siberian States”, for which they paid with deportation to the Vologda and Arkhangelsk provinces (9). Thus, the beginning of Siberian regionalism was laid. Nevertheless, both the authorities and the supporters of the movement themselves denied even the potential prospect of the development of separatist sentiments in the region. In response to V. Annenkov's denunciation about a conspiracy allegedly being prepared in Eastern Siberia with the aim of separating Siberia from the Russian Empire, gendarmerie colonel V.P. Rykachev explained in 1869 to higher “authorities”: “There are 4 million inhabitants in Siberia, who occupy an area of ​​about 260 thousand square miles. What kind of conspiracy should be, how strong should the person at the head of it be, and what means should he have to excite these 4 million to separatism?” (10).

In turn, in 1862 the ideologist of regionalism G.N. Potanin outlined the “credo” of the movement as follows: “We want to live and develop independently, to have our own customs and laws, to read and write what we want, and not what they are ordered from Russia, to raise children as we wish, to collect taxes and spend in our own way. them only on yourself.” But at the same time he explained: “Regionalism includes separatism not only in the field of culture, but also in the field of politics, with the exception of only the most extreme act (an attempt on the integrity of the state), which in the usual common language is called political separatism; the latter is unacceptable from the state point of view; but regional separatism does not threaten the integrity of the state, although it can go very, very far” (11).

The Decembrists were the first to raise the issue of decentralizing the administration of territories. P.I. Pestel has priority in defining the term "federalism" in relation to domestic practice. “Federal are those states,” he noted, “in which the regions, their constituents, although they recognize a common supreme power over themselves and are obliged to act jointly in all external relations, but for all that retain their right to make laws and issue decisions for their own its internal civil and political education and arrange his government according to his private discretion” (12). As you can see, there is no national aspect in the definition of the definition. A specific version of the federal structure based on the principles outlined above is contained in the constitutional draft of N.M. Muravyov, who proposed dividing Russia into 13 powers, including the Ob and Lena powers in Siberia, headed by the Chambers of Elections and State Dumas.

A new stage in the development of the Russian model of federalism (regionalism) is associated with the names of N.I. Kostomarov and A.P. Shchapov, who formulated the zemstvo-regional concept of the history of Russia. The basis of the views of the first was the idea that all the peoples of the country have “federative principles” that provide the basis for the creation of a federation. The essence of federalism A.P. Shchapov showed not the national aspect, but the local (regional) features of the Great Russian people, formed in the process of colonization of new territories under the influence of natural, climatic, economic and ethnographic conditions. Thus, N.I. Kostomarov and A.P. Shchapov in the 50-60s. Х1Х century formulated two opposite approaches to the problem of the federal structure of Russia - according to national and territorial (regional) principles.

In general, at the beginning of the XX century. the double interpretation of the term “federalism” becomes generally accepted, but its definition as a territorial (regional) phenomenon has become the most common. This approach found its concrete embodiment in the program provisions of the main Russian political parties (the Cadets, the Socialist-Revolutionaries, the Social Democrats, including the Bolsheviks). Leading experts and politicians were firmly convinced that no federation could solve the national question. Prominent statesman A.S. Yaschenko in his fundamental research argued that it was impossible to create a federation in Russia according to the national principle (13). The leading specialist of the Cadet Party on the national question, F.F. Kokoshkin. “I believe,” he declared, “that building a Russian federation based on national division is a task of state building that is practically impossible” (14).

In this situation in Siberia, the regional movement is taking shape as a system of views of a part of the local intelligentsia (G.N. Potanin, N.M. Yadrintsev, S.S. Shashkov, V.I. Vagin, A.V. Adrianov, Vl. M. Krutovsky , I. I. Serebrennikov, P. V. Vologodsky, N. N. Kozmin, etc.) on the past, present and future of the region as a specific area. It has gone through a long evolution, developing the concept of territorial independence of Siberia, headed by a regional (regional) representative body - the regional Duma, endowed with a set of powers similar to the competence of the state in the US federal system.

Considering Siberia as a colony, the supporters of the movement put forward a program to overcome this situation by stimulating free resettlement, eliminating exile, “establishing the patronage of Siberian trade and industry”, direct entry of Siberian goods to the world market by introducing a free port at the mouths of the Ob and Yenisei, and organizing shipping along the Northern Sea Route and attract foreign investment.

The regionalists have priority in developing the theoretical foundations of domestic regional studies. They singled out Siberia as a separate region (region) based on the following criteria: the specifics of natural and climatic conditions, the formation of a special historical and ethnographic type of the Russian (old-timer) population here, and the geopolitical position of the region. Summarizing them, A. Sibiryakov wrote in 1906: “Although Siberia does not at all fit into the category of such outskirts as Poland, or even Little Russia, where there are special types of Slavic peoples, and none of the Russian inhabitants, as well as the Siberians themselves, will to reckon the Siberians to some nationality different from Russian, but, nevertheless, the special conditions of Siberia in geographical, ethnographic and even social relations have already become so specialized at the present time that, adding to them the external relations of Siberia with its immediate neighbors, what are China and Japan, i.e. the position that they occupy in relation to Siberia at the moment, the initiation of the question of the autonomy of Siberia now seems more than opportune” (15).

Over time, the economic factor was added to these criteria. “The vast empire cannot but be divided into separate regions,” G.N. Potanin, - even if the connection between them continued to exist, this division should not be established on ethnographic features ... To control the spending of local finances, a local legislative body, a regional duma, should be created. Then entrepreneurs will not travel a thousand miles from their regions and live far from them to carry out their economic projects in the central offices, the holders of money funds will remain in the region, close to the institutions in charge of the regional economy, the wealth collected from the regional territory will accumulate in region” (16).

During the revolution of 1905-1907. at an illegal congress in Tomsk on August 28-29, 1905 (17), the “Basic Provisions of the Siberian Regional Union” were adopted, which emphasized: “Constituting an inseparable part of Russia, participating on an equal basis with other parts of Russia in the general system of state administration on the basis of popular representation, Siberia, both in terms of its historical-geographical, ethnographic and socio-economic conditions, and in terms of purely local commercial, industrial and agricultural interests, is a separate region. Proceeding from the position that each region should have the right to self-government, we declare that Siberia, by virtue of the indicated conditions and interests, needs the organization of regional self-government in the form of the Siberian Regional Duma, independently solving all local needs and questions of economic, socio-economic, enlightening." It was proposed to transfer to the jurisdiction of the Duma: “a). local budget law; b). public education; V). public safety; G). local means of communication and tariff; e). public health; e). disposal and ownership of all lands of the region, which are part of the state fund with forests, waters and subsoil; and). determination of the order of land use in connection with the resettlement issue; h). foreign question” (18).

These ideas were shared by local organizations of the main political parties and non-partisan public formations such as the Irkutsk Trade and Industrial Union (19). Differences between the supporters of Siberian federalism at the time under consideration went along the line of ideas about the region as a single whole or a system of self-governing territories. Thus, the Irkutsk regionalists, who consolidated with the liberals from the local "Union of Unions", created a special commission to prepare a draft regulation on the introduction of a zemstvo in Siberia. On her behalf, it was finalized by the editor of the newspaper "Eastern Review" I.I. Popov. Unlike Tomsk, it provided for the organization of separate regional dumas for each of the parts of the region (Eastern and Western). Moreover, the Irkutsk regionalists allowed in the foreseeable future the creation of several dozen autonomous regions in “the vast expanses of Siberia and Turkestan” (20). All this taken together allowed the Chairman of the Council of Ministers S.Yu. Witte in 1906 to state: “The autonomy of the border regions no longer constitutes the ultimate ideal of the federalists; they started talking about provincial autonomy, that is, about transforming Russia into a union of free, self-determining federations (like America)” (21).

After February 1917, the attitude of the main political parties towards the federal structure of Russia changed significantly. The Socialist-Revolutionaries remained his consistent supporters. As explained in a popular brochure on this subject, which was published by the AKP publishing house, “if several cities and provinces have entered into such an agreement among themselves to conduct common affairs, then at the same time, individual zemstvo and city assemblies send their representatives elected to these Duma and city meetings. meetings, and these representatives constitute special regional councils for the conduct of common affairs and enterprises. This was considered possible “for the Volga region, Belarus, the South-Western Territory, Siberia” (22). The logical conclusion of this trend was the adoption by the All-Russian Constituent Assembly, where the Social Revolutionaries prevailed, of its last resolution on the state structure of Russia, which consisted of one sentence: “The Russian State is proclaimed by the Russian Democratic Federative Republic, uniting peoples and regions in an inseparable union, within the limits established by the federal constitution, sovereign” (23).

In Siberia, during 1917, under regional slogans, there was an unification of organizations and groups, including socialist-revolutionaries, popular socialists, regionalists proper, Mensheviks, nationalists, who, through the city dumas, zemstvo councils, councils of peasant deputies and cooperatives, which they controlled, tried to achieve an autonomous status of the region.

The theoretical basis of the block was the conceptual provisions of the theoreticians of regionalism, modernized in relation to the experienced situation. Thus, in the resolution of the general meeting of authorized representatives of the CentroSibir cooperative association (August 1917), it was emphasized that “drowning in the riches of Siberian nature, the population, even in peacetime, needed every nail, lump of sugar, an arshin of cloth or chintz ... The wealth of Siberia is almost for nothing are taken abroad, processed there and sold to Siberia in the form of factory products at high prices” (24). The way out of this situation was the leader of the Irkutsk regionalists I.I. Serebrennikov saw the establishment of the Siberian Regional Duma, “common for all of Siberia, with the relevant executive bodies and with the allocation of Siberian finances from state finances, with the provision of this Regional Duma with the right to manage the entire economy of the colony” (25).

A characteristic feature of the political processes of 1917 in the east of Russia was the escalation of the national movement. Already in March, at numerous rallies and meetings of representatives of national minorities, in general terms, wishes were formulated for a fair resolution of the national question, which did not go beyond “full autonomy for all the peoples of the former empire and the introduction of a native language in schools, meetings and institutions of each people” (26). At the same time, the creation of national organizations of political parties and national movements. Activity was previously shown by extraterritorial (dispersed in a foreign-speaking environment) minorities of Western origin (Jews, Germans, Balts, Poles, Ukrainians). They were followed by Muslim (Tatar) bureaus in Tyumen, Omsk, Novonikolaevsk, and Tomsk. On March 6, the first private meeting of a group of Buryat intelligentsia took place in Chita, which established an organizing committee consisting of Sh.B. Badmaeva, Sh.B. Bazarova, M.N. Bogdanova, N.N. Namdakova, E.-D. Rinchino and S.S. Sampilov.

Subsequently, the extraterritorials consistently advocated the transformation of Russia into a federal democratic republic with the provision of cultural and national autonomy to ethnic groups that do not have a common territory (27). As for the aboriginal ethnic groups, their national organizations went further. Thus, the Buryat Provisional Organizing Committee already in April goes to the nomination and substantiation of the project of national autonomy according to the somon-khoshun-aimak-Burnatsdum scheme. The Altaians went even further, who in the summer of 1917 achieved an autonomous status for them. On the basis of the decision of the session of the Tomsk Provincial People's Assembly on July 1-6, a congress of foreign volosts of Gorny Altai "with the functions of a sub-district Constituent Assembly" was held in Biysk, which elected the Altai Mining Duma headed by G.I. Gurkin. In the Kuznetsk district, at the congress of the Shors on July 28-30, a special department of the Duma is created.

A cross section of opinions on the problem of relations between Siberia and Russia of various groups was given by the First Siberian Regional Congress, which opened in Tomsk on October 8, 1917, at which it was supposed to adopt one of the projects of the national state structure of Russia, with its subsequent approval in the All-Russian Constituent Assembly (28). The forum was attended by 182 delegates, including 18 Tatars, 13 Ukrainians, 10 Kazakhs, 5 Germans and Jews, 4 Poles, 3 Yakuts, 2 Altaians, one Belarusian and one Buryat each. In total, the nationals made up 34% of the delegates and represented 30 national associations, including 9 Tatar national councils, 5 Ukrainian national communities, two German committees, Alash Orda, the Altai Mining Duma, the Yakut Labor Union of Federalists, two Zionist organizations and etc.

Four days (October 9-12) were spent listening to two “extensive” reports of the Socialist-Revolutionaries M.B. Shatilova “Siberia as an integral part of the Russian Federal Republic” and E.V. Zakharov “Regional structure of Siberia”. Judging by the theses of the latter, he spoke in favor of the decentralization of the administration of territories, one of which included Siberia. At the same time, “the resolution of land-related issues in connection with the socialization of the land and the organization of the life of foreigners” was considered a priority problem in the internal life of the region. The speaker defended the federal structure of the Russian Republic and the organization of a representative body in the region - the Siberian Regional Duma, endowed with a set of powers provided for by the “Basic Provisions of the Siberian Regional Union” adopted in 1905. In addition, it was proposed to include in the competence of the Duma “local work and needs”, as well as “all matters of a local or private nature of the province” (29).

During the debate, it became clear that there was no unity of views among the delegates on the issue of the autonomy of Siberia, even within individual factions. The Cadets spoke decisively for "one and indivisible". Representative of their Tomsk organization I.A. Nekrasov said: “We had a great and united Russia, and the nationalities that make up Russia, they were with us and will die with us.” Supporting him, the delegate from the Siberian Cossack army, Colonel E.P. Berezovsky warned the nationalists: “But they must remember that if they decide to break away from the Russian state, then they are in danger of death. Only the Russian people, the most tolerant of all nationalities, will only be able to give them the opportunity to develop and manifest all the gifts that are invested in them, ”and concluding his speech, he threatened:“ I would ask you not to forget that the Siberian Cossacks are sufficiently organized, sufficiently strong , and therefore it can be in a friendly family, when we strive not to destroy the state unity” (30).

The Cadet deputies were supported by a part of the Mensheviks, however, expressing the opposite argument. According to K.G. Brontman, bourgeois opponents are guided by “a very true, albeit blind in this case, class instinct ... There is no doubt that big capital in Siberia, if it existed, would be against an expanded interpretation of autonomy.” Rejecting it, he declared that regionalism had become obsolete, and from the standpoint of social democracy, the development of the class struggle requires "the unconditional unity of Siberia and Russia, as complete as possible in terms of economics." He was objected by a party colleague, a delegate from the Irkutsk city government N.A. Alekseev: “As a Social Democrat, I see absolutely nothing in this program of regional self-government that would be in irreconcilable contradiction with the interests of the working class, and I must declare, and, I think, not only on my own behalf, but also on behalf of many social Democrats, that we, the Social Democrats, will support in every possible way the desire for regional self-government in Siberia on the widest scale” (31).

Supporters of autonomy, in turn, split into autonomists and federalists. In addition, they were divided into those who recognized Siberia as a single region and advocated its division into several regions. Representatives of national associations put forward their demands, formulated by S.A. Novgorodov: “When we cope with the first task of history - with the introduction of broad democratic self-government, after that we will move on to the next exam, to the introduction of legislative diets” (32). All this confusion allowed E. P. Berezovsky to remark: “I learned from all these discussions that even the Siberian intelligentsia did not clearly understand what federation and autonomy are” (33). Objecting to him, at a meeting on October 15, A.N. Bukeikhanov stressed: “I look at our debates as the debates of the peoples of Siberia in general, and this is not a party matter, and we should try to gather all talented Siberians around this cause” (34).

On October 16, 1917, the delegates of the regional congress adopted the resolution “Regional Organization of Siberia”, which is a set of normative proposals that determine the status of Siberia within the Russian state, the basic principles of the functioning of the autonomy, the structure of its governing bodies, their competence and the order of formation.

Recognizing the unity of the Russian Republic, the document demanded "national or territorial autonomy" for its parts. At the same time, “the rights of national minorities in areas with a mixed population and the rights of nations without a territory must be ensured by law through the formation of extraterritorial personal-autonomous unions.” Siberia has all the rights to autonomy, and within the limits of the powers determined by the “central parliament”, all power in the region should belong to the Siberian Regional Duma, “elected on the basis of universal, direct, equal and secret suffrage, observing the principles of proportional representation.”

As an autonomous unit, Siberia “has the right to transfer part of its legislative powers to individual regions and nationalities occupying a separate territory, if the latter so request, thus turning into a federation, i.e., a union of regions and nationalities.” The delegates did not forget about the delicate problem of the borders of Siberia in the west, defining them "along the watershed to the east of the Urals, with the inclusion of the entire Kyrgyz region, with the free expression of the will of the population occupying these limits."

The following were subject to the jurisdiction of the Siberian Regional Duma: “1). local budget law; 2). public education; 3). public safety; 4). public health; 5). local means of communication, post and telegraph; 6). the right to set tariffs and duties; 7). disposal of people's property - land, bowels and waters, on the grounds to be established by the Constituent Assembly; 8). business of resettlement and resettlement; 9). changing the constitution of Siberia, with the exception of what concerns the expansion of the competence of the Siberian Regional Duma at the expense of the central parliament; 10). local jobs and businesses; eleven). social legislation and development of republican laws; 12). in general, all matters of a local character.

It was supposed “to ensure the rule of law in the field of internal administration” to create an independent administrative (supreme) court, “separated from the court of criminal and civil, organized on a consistent basis in all instances of the elective principle and having a cassation instance - a mixed collegium consisting of lawyers and persons with experience in matters of administration” (35).

In evaluating the document, it should first of all be noted that it was a logical continuation of the “Basic Provisions of the Siberian Regional Union” of 1905. From the state-legal point of view, it seems to us that it created the optimal form of the federal structure of Russia with a well-developed system of management organization at the level region (region), separation of functions of central and local authorities, in which the principle of separation of powers into legislative (Duma), executive (cabinet of ministers) and judicial (administrative court) was carried out. The normative act combined both approaches to federalism: national and territorial. In addition, he guaranteed national minorities the preservation of their ethnic identity in areas of mixed residence and extraterritorial areas. Finally, the document provided for the possibility of further improvement of national-state structures within the region by gradually transforming them "into a union of regions and nationalities." From this point of view, it has not lost its relevance in our time.

The overthrow of Soviet power in the summer of 1918 in the east of Russia initially led to the activation of national movements. Significant hopes were pinned on the Provisional Siberian Government headed by P.V. Vologda, among whose departments the Ministry of Native Affairs, headed by M.B. Shatilov. The main program provisions of the “democratic” counter-revolution in the national sphere were reflected in the “Act on the Formation of the All-Russian Supreme Power”, adopted at the Ufa State Conference on September 23, 1918. It was signed by representatives of Bashkiria, Alash-Orda, Autonomous Turkestan, the Provisional Estonian Government, and the National Administration Turko-Tatars inner Russia and Siberia. The document, on the one hand, provided for the “reunification of the torn away, fallen away and disparate regions of Russia”, and on the other hand, the granting of territorial and national autonomy to certain regions, as well as the recognition of the right to cultural and national self-determination for extraterritorial ethnic groups on the basis of laws adopted by the “sovereign Constituent Assembly” (36).

However, the Ministry of Native Affairs did nothing in terms of a practical solution national problems. The faction of nationalities of the Siberian Regional Duma, which prepared a draft regulation on the ministry, had certain developments. Aboriginal ethnic groups living north of 60 degrees north latitude, as well as having a "rare and uncultured population" passed into its jurisdiction. Their habitats were subject to division into districts subordinate to the Ministry of Native Affairs. In each of them, a commissioner was appointed for the department under which the district native council operated. To finance the districts, it was supposed to form the Siberian Native Fund, replenished from taxes collected from the natives, and fixed deductions from income received from exploitation natural resources native districts (37).

The situation in the national sphere changed significantly after the coup d'état on November 18, 1918. A.V. Kolchak and his government declared their proposals extremely sparingly and vaguely, adhering to the fundamental principle of “one and indivisible” Russia. As rightly noted by I.V. To us: “The Kolchak government perceived the claims of national minorities as a limitation of sovereign sovereignty. Kolchak's ideologists argued the non-recognition of cultural and national autonomy by the fact that the rights of national minorities are ensured by the recognition of their civil rights. Thus, national minorities were denied the right to exist in the form of a collective (national union). And therefore, the self-government of national minorities by the Kolchak authorities was not welcomed” (38).

In addition, the authorities consistently opposed the intentions of individual aboriginal ethnic groups to establish territorial autonomy. Therefore, among their national elites, the desire to obtain autonomy or independence is being revived by creating statehood on a theocratic basis or by uniting with neighboring peoples close in language and culture. So, in April 1919, the sheretuy of the Kudinsky datsan in Transbaikalia, S. Tsydenov, declared himself the king of the Buryat theocratic state, whose authority was recognized by the population of five khoshuns. On May 11, the tsar and his ministers were arrested by the police (39). In general, in 1919, among the Buryat intelligentsia, a desire was formed to unite the Mongols into a single state under the auspices of Ataman G.M. Semenov and Japan. For the practical implementation of the plan, at the end of February, a congress of pan-Mongolists opens in Chita, which decided to form an independent federal “Great Mongolian state” with the inclusion of Inner and Outer Mongolia, Barga and the Buryat lands. However, new public education did not receive support even from Japan, which feared complications in the international arena (40).

As for the regionals, during the period of Kolchakism, some of them represented by I.A. Molodykh, M.P. Golovacheva, N.Ya. Novombergsky, A.D. Bazhenova, N.N. Kozmina and others set out their vision of the problem of the incorporation of Siberia into Russia in the “Declaration of Siberians-regionalists”, promulgated in early July 1919. They recognized that “the transitional form of Russian power until the final victory over the Bolsheviks and until the creation of the National Constituent Assembly, in in the interests of gathering the disparate parts of Russia, the Supreme State Power, exercised by the Supreme Government, must remain with full power. At the same time, it was considered timely to put before it the question of creating a Siberian regional administration with a "legislative body on local issues." Finally, the movement's supporters listed local issues that should be resolved soon. They demanded “the establishment and protection of the land rights of the old-timers-peasants, Cossacks and foreigners, as well as the economic structure of the former settlers” (41).

In the summer of 1919, a commission was created under the chairmanship of A.S. Beletsky-Belorusov to prepare the regulation on the elections to the promised A.V. Kolchak after the victory over the Bolsheviks National Assembly. The last of the attempts we have identified to raise the question of the autonomy of Siberia is connected with its activities. N.N. is appointed as the Deputy Chairman of the Commission. Kozmin, who was instructed to work out the issue of the Siberian regional representative body. The essence of his proposals boiled down to the establishment of the Siberian Regional Duma and the Siberian Regional Council. In parallel with them, the executive power was to belong to the governor-general as a representative of the central government and commander of the troops. The Duma was supposed to be elected for four years by persons who were born in Siberia or lived there for at least five years. The regional council was to be elected from representatives from provincial zemstvos, Cossack troops, indigenous peoples with national organizations. One third of its members were appointed by the governor-general (42).

Being in exile after the end of the civil war, prominent supporters of regionalism M.P. Golovachev, P.V. Vologodsky, I.A. Yakushev, I.I. Serebrennikov, I.K. Okulich and others continued to develop the concept of the territorial independence of Siberia, already taking into account the experience of Soviet construction. Moreover, separatism was rejected in all developments. “We, Siberians,” emphasized I.K. Okulich, “we have repeatedly pointed out that we don’t think about any separation from Russia, we consider ourselves Russian people, we don’t sympathize with independence, but we definitely want to be masters in our homeland in Siberia.” A characteristic feature of all projects was approximately the same list of powers of regional self-government bodies, coinciding with the one proposed by the regionalists back in 1905. Only the approaches to the organization of all-Siberian governing bodies were different in them.

For example, I.K. Okulich suggested taking the federal system of the United States as the basis for the autonomous structure of Siberia, in which legislative functions would belong to a small parliament (no more than 100 people). Executive power must be exercised by a popularly elected president and the Council of Ministers responsible to him. Local self-government at the level of a volost-province is implemented by zemstvo bodies. In contrast to him, I.A. Yakushev and I.I. Serebrennikov put forward the model of a parliamentary republic headed by the Siberian Regional Duma and the Cabinet of Ministers responsible to it. Independent judiciaries should be led at the regional level by the special presence of the ruling senate (43).

Actually, this can complete the review of attempts to develop an optimal model of relations between Siberia and Russia in the pre-Soviet period.

Notes

1. Russian newspaper. 1991. 11 Oct.
2. Abdulatipov R. G., Boltenkova L. F., Yarov Yu. F. Federalism in the history of Russia. M., 1992. Book. 1.
3. Vost. review (Irkutsk). 1885. March 14.
4. Yadrintsev N.M. Needs and living conditions of the working population of Siberia (investigation of Siberian bondage, monopoly and world-eating) // Otech. notes. 1876. No. 12. S. 245.
5. Shashkov S. S. Essays on Siberia in historical and economic terms // Library for Reading. 1862. V. 174. No. 12. S. 54-55.
6. Shilovsky M. V. On the question of the colonial position of Siberia as part of the Russian state // European studies in Siberia. Tomsk, 2001. Issue. 3. P. 15.
7. Kuleshov VV, Kryukov VA Economic development of Siberia in the XX century (discussion materials). Novosibirsk, 2000, p. 6.
8. Iriney Nesterovich... // Russian antiquity. 1882. No. 9. S. 574.
9. GARF. F. 109. Op. 1865. D. 196. L. 22; Shilovsky M. V. Siberian regionalists in the socio-political movement in the late 50s - 60s of the XIX century. Novosibirsk, 1989; He is. Case of the Siberian regionals in 1865 // Izv. Omsk State ist.-local historian. museum. 1998. No. 6. S. 229-246.
10. GARF. F. 109. Op. 1868. D. 8. Part 10. L. 46.
11. Letters of G. N. Potanin. Irkutsk, 1987. T. 1. S. 59; He is. Memories // Literary heritage of Siberia. Novosibirsk, 1983. T. 6. S. 210.
12. Decembrist revolt. Documentation. M., 1958. T. 7. S. 126.
13. Yashchenko A. S. The theory of federalism. Yuriev, 1912. S. 392.
14. Kokoshkin F.F. Autonomy and federation. Pg., 1917. S. 14.
15. Sibiryakov A. On the issue of the autonomy of Siberia // Sib. life (Tomsk). 1906. Jan. 19
16. Potanin G.N. The future of the Siberian regional trend // Sib. life. 1907. July 6
17. See: Shilovsky M.V. Congress of the Siberian Regional Union (August 1905) // Socio-demographic problems of the history of Siberia in the 17th - 20th centuries. Novosibirsk, 1996, pp. 45-52.
18. Right. 1905. Oct. 1 pp. 3253-3254.
19. TsDNIIO. F. 300. Op. 1. D. 158. L. 1; Weisman R. L. Legal requirements of Siberia. SPb., 1909. S. 12.
20. Popov I. I. Draft Regulations on Zemstvo Institutions in Siberia. Irkutsk, 1905; He is. Self-government and zemstvo institutions (on the introduction of zemstvos in Siberia). M., 1905; Vost. review. 1905. 2 Sept.
21. Witte S. Yu. Crossroads (Note to Nicholas II) // New time. 1994. No. 32. S. 44.
22. Kabanov N. Regional government of the people. M., 1917. S. 3, 4.
23. Constituent Assembly. Verbatim report. Pg., 1918. S. 90.
24. SAOO. F. 151. Op. 1. D. 14. L. 8.
25. Serebrennikov I. I. G. N. Potanin and regionalism // Izv. Irkutsk department of the Society for the Study of Siberia and the improvement of its life. Irkutsk, 1917. T. 1. S. 129-130.
26. Victory of the Great October Revolution in Siberia. Tomsk, 1987. Part 1. S. 248.
27. Nam I. V. Congresses of national minorities of Siberia (1917 - early 1918) // October and the Civil War in Siberia. Story. Historiography. Source study. Tomsk, 1993. S. 86-89.
28. For more details, see: Shilovsky M.V. The First Siberian Regional Congress (October 1917) // Issues of the history of Siberia in the twentieth century. Novosibirsk, 1998. S. 42-57.
29. GANO. F. p. 5. Op. 4. D. 659. L. 1, 3.
30. GATO. F. r-552. Op. 1. D. 7. L. 16; d. 8. L. 4, 6.
31. There. D. 6. L. 53, 60, 66-67.
32. There. L. 79.
33. There. D. 8. L. 5.
34. There. D. 10. L. 56.
35. GANO. F. p. 5. Op. 4. D. 645. L. 9-12.
36. The history of "white" Siberia. Abstracts of scientific conf. Kemerovo, 1995, pp. 166-167.
37. Altai beam (Barnaul). 1918. 7 Aug.
38. Nam IV Self-organization of national minorities of Siberia in the conditions of revolution and civil war // History of “white” Siberia. S. 103.
39. Vasilievsky V.I. Transbaikal white statehood. Chita, 2000, p. 93.
40. Rinchino E.-D. Great Powers and Independence of Mongolia (1919) // Rinchino E.-D. Documentation. Articles. Letters. Ulan-Ude, 1994, pp. 112-120; Kuras L. V., Bazarov B. V. At the origins of the Buryat state // Siberia: XX century. Kemerovo, 1999. Issue. 2. P. 15.
41. GANO. F. P. 5. Op. 4. D. 648. L. 2, 3.
42. Free Siberia (Krasnoyarsk). 1919. 30 Sept.
43. Shilovsky M.V. Socio-political movement in Siberia in the second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries. Regionals. Novosibirsk, 1995, pp. 120-121.

Shilovsky M.V.,
d. ist. n., prof. NSU

Article first published:
Shilovsky, M.V. Regionalism and regionalism: the evolution of the views of the Siberian society on the way of the incorporation of Siberia into the all-Russian space // Administrative-state and legal development of Siberia in the XVII-XX centuries. - Irkutsk, 2003.

Printed analogue: Remnev A.V. Western origins of Siberian regionalism // Russian emigration before 1917 - a laboratory of liberal and revolutionary thought. SPb., 1997. S. 142–156.

The period of formation of the ideology of the Siberian regionalism took almost fifteen years - from the beginning of the 60s to the middle of the 70s of the XIX century. During this time, the leading theorists of regionalism N. M. Yadrintsev and G. N. Potanin managed to plunge into the student movement in St. Petersburg, actively promoted their views in newspapers, magazines and open speeches in Siberia itself, and became the main figures in the famous process of "Siberian separatists" 1865 in Omsk and were deported under police supervision to the northern provinces of the European part of Russia. Along with the stormy social activities these years also account for the search theoretical substantiation regional movement.

Undoubtedly, the Russian experience itself became the basis of the regional theory, spontaneously awakening local patriotism among the Siberian intelligentsia, emotional perception of all kinds of manifestations of inequality in relations between the center and the outskirts. The populist ideas of A. I. Herzen and N. G. Chernyshevsky, the anarcho-federalist ideas of M. A. Bakunin, the Zemstvo-oblast theory of A. P. Shchapov, and the historical writings of N. I. Kostomarov and even the freedom-loving poetry of T. G. Shevchenko. Among the ideological predecessors, the exiled Decembrists and Petrashevists, the first Siberian historian P. A. Slovtsov and others are also usually named. 50s - 60s of the XIX century "(Novosibirsk, 1989).

However, the analysis of journalistic articles, scientific papers and the epistolary heritage of the ideologues of the Siberian regionalism N. M. Yadrintsev and G. N. Potanin testifies to the significant influence on the formation and evolution of their views of the history of Western European colonies, political and economic theories of that time. Throughout his life, Yadrintsev carried his passion for the North American States and his confidence that Siberia was destined for an equally wonderful future. In 1893 he wrote to Potanin during his American trip:

“I am writing to you on July 4 - the holiday of independence: imagine my feelings ... My heart stops, and pain and longing for our homeland. My God! Will she be so blooming?

Western ideas and colonial experience to a large extent became the impetus for future regionalists to realize the colonial position of Siberia as part of the Russian Empire. G. N. Potanin directly stated at the investigation in Omsk that the idea of ​​the separation of Siberia stemmed from an analogy with the history of North America and the Spanish American colonies. Later, he recalled the impression that the Orientalist I. N. Berezin's article on the colonies made on him, the source of which was the book of the German economist Wilhelm Roscher. From this article, Potanin "learned that there are trading and agricultural colonies, and that the history of the latter usually ends in separation from the metropolis." An article by G. G. Peizin, which Potanin also mentions in his memoirs, also interpreted Siberia as a “penal colony”. At the same time, Peizin wrote about the protest of the colonies against the exile of criminals and mentioned Franklin's brilliant pamphlet against exile. In one of the letters of 1862, Potanin exclaimed: "Now we need Jeffersons, Franklins ...".

In a letter to his colleague A.D. Shaitanov in April 1863, G. N. Potanin launched a whole program of ideological education of the regionalist:

“The revolution of minds (in Siberia) and the replenishment of the emptiness in (Siberian) heads - this is the role that lies ahead for us. Therefore, along with the study of materialism, study social doctrines and engage in reading historical and journalistic writings, study the laws of revolution and reaction and political upheavals that tend both towards the unification of nationalities and separatism, and the main thing in this reading is to equate the fate of our country with everything read. - Siberia. Then your reading will be fruitful and will turn you into a red separatist."

This explains the close interest of the founders of regionalism Yadrintsev and Potanin in Western social and economic theories. The list of Western authors whose names are abundantly scattered throughout their writings and letters is quite impressive. This is P.-J. Proudhon and Louis Blanc, A. Saint-Simon, G.-Ch. Carey, K. Marx, W. Roscher and A Leroy-Beaulieu. In the writings of D. Draper on colonization in America, they seek reinforcement for their thoughts on the impact of climate on the development of Siberia and its population.

Interest in Western ideas was dictated primarily by the need to provide a scientific justification for the so-called "Siberian issues". In the list of topics that interested the regionalists, of course, the colonial question was in the first place. Potanin wrote on May 21, 1872 to Yadrintsev:

“The question of colonial policy is the very first for me, and in it I am a complete layman and always wander not in the light of European science, but in the light of an oil lamp that smokes in my own brain.”

In the 80s of the XIX century. The regionalists actively promoted the achievements of Western colonial science on the pages of their printed organ, the Vostochnoye Obozreniye newspaper. In his book "Siberia as a colony" Yadrintsev provides a solid list of articles on the colonial issue, placed in the "Eastern Review". The newspaper also closely followed the study of the colonial question in the West, listing special European colonial journals.

In 1884, in two issues of Vostochnoye Obozreniye, under the pseudonym "Colonist", Yadrintsev published an article "Correspondence between the colony and the metropolis", in which, relying on Roscher's theory, he noted whole line characteristic features, which made Siberia related to the agricultural colonies of European states. In Siberia, as in America or Australia, he especially emphasized, there is no aristocracy and rigidly divided estates, everyone feels equal in rights. True, Yadrintsev admits, like the Yankees, the Siberian is rude, insufficiently educated, but he has a developed sense of his own dignity. The pursuit of profit, characteristic of all colonies, leads to the dominance of material interests, to the fact that "everyone appreciates a penny and nothing more." The reign of capital gives rise to a mass of abuses, heartlessness, immorality. But in the colonies, a person gains freedom, here society provides everyone with equal opportunities in search of happiness. The colonist who decided to leave his homeland is a remarkable person, full of energy and talents. “Indeed,” says Yadrintsev, “the peasantry in Siberia is bolder and bolder, their courage and courage are developed here even more by wandering through deserts and forests, they are very resourceful and have developed many qualities in themselves and deployed their abilities in freedom. The industrialist here is also infected with adventurism, he traveled all over Siberia, visited Kamchatka, the Kuril Islands, China, etc.” . Siberia, like America for a European, awakened in the Russian man the spirit of enterprise. He also mentions the Siberian schismatics, as if emphasizing the analogy with the English Puritans who settled in Virginia. The Siberian peasant ceases to resemble his Russian counterpart more and more. He is less infected with superstitions and prejudices, more receptive to innovations and even seeks to adopt urban fashion in clothing and everyday life. And this, does not forget to remind Yadrintsev, is a feature of all colonies. Even the “downgrading of the Russian race” due to mixing with the Siberian natives seems to him similar to the process of mestizoization in Latin America. To prove the main thesis, examples are used about criminal exile, cases of slavery, predatory mining of gold, etc. In addition to ethnographic and socio-economic features, Yadrintsev also draws attention to the methods of the colonial policy of the autocracy in relation to Siberia. Referring to classic definition the economic dependence of the colony on the metropolis of A. Smith, he sums up, as it were: “The main essence of the internal colonial life is based on these relations, and through them feelings, disposition and inseparability of ties are established, which are reflected in subsequent historical life” . The identification of the analogy between Siberia and European colonies is clearly necessary for the ideologue of Siberian regionalism in order to once again remind the government of the need to satisfy Siberian needs and hint at the danger of colonial separatism if the interests of their colonists are forgotten.

However, condemning the colonial policy on the merits, the regionalists could not ignore its positive impact. When G. E. Blagosvetlov suggested to S. S. Shashkov, Yadrintsev’s comrade in exile, “to scold the red-haired barbarians” (English colonizers), the latter unexpectedly stood up for them:

“Why scold? Because their colonial talents created America and Australia? Because New Holland, Cape D. Hope and Canada have been given a constitution, because they are building a university in India and plowed it with railroads? .

Being under the general impression of the ideas of material progress, they recognized that without the intervention of the mother country, the development of the colonies would have progressed extremely slowly. The point, in their opinion, is not in colonial policy in general, but in its proper organization and direction. It is no coincidence that Yadrintsev noted in one of his letters to Potanin: "When denouncing England, we must remember that its policy was still more progressive than many states, such as Spain." It is no coincidence that in 1872 Yadrintsev wrote, and then published in the journal Delo, Essays on English Colonization. In the same year, Potanin published an article in the St. Petersburg newspaper Nedelya "Where is our market for raw materials?", which contained a detailed analysis of the history of government policy towards Siberia. His conclusion is rather disappointing:

“Despite the fact that the attitude of Russia towards her colonies passed through phases analogous to those through which the history of colonial policy also passed in the West, there are, however, more grounds for believing that these analogies appeared without a definite plan to which the government would adhere, that they were the inevitable result of the course of circumstances themselves.

That is why the regionalists later reproached the government for not being able to work out some kind of clearly conscious colonial system and not skillfully using Siberia.

This also explains the complex attitude of the regionals to the planned construction of the Siberian railway, which threatened the final consolidation of Siberia as a market for raw materials. But, in their opinion, the road will undoubtedly accelerate the colonization of the region, will facilitate the import of knowledge, inventions and capital. Arguments about Yadrintsev's colonial policy completely refute the view of the regionalists only as separatists and anti-colonialists. Objecting to such coarsening of their positions, Yadrintsev explained:

“Imagine an ignorant territory isolated; it will lose more than it will gain for lack of communication. The connection between the colonies and the mother country therefore has its own meaning, and the more undeveloped the colony, the stronger the need for this connection should be. An ignorant country will starve to death, sink into stagnation, it will become Mongolia, China. - But, for mercy's sake, because the profits are too huge for this training, for bringing "part of the knowledge", these profits are worth both flesh and blood. What to do, the payment for learning is great, like the request of an unceremonious teacher, but it is better to pay dearly than to be left completely without learning and education.

In the same spirit, Yadrintsev suggested interpreting the situation of the indigenous peoples of the colonies. He urged not to be limited only to denunciation of the actions of the colonialists. “The question of limiting foreign lands, narrowing their pastures and hunting grounds,” Yadrintsev wrote to Potanin in 1872, “is an inevitable question of colonization and civilization. What to do if foreigners cannot come to terms with this. And colonization without this is unthinkable. Obviously, the conclusion suggested itself from the study of the extensive literature on the situation of the Tasmanians, American Indians and other peoples. Yadrintsev admits that there are "natural" causes of the extinction of indigenous peoples, to which he directly refers Negative consequences edge civilization. In his opinion, if "a foreigner stands in these matters across the road and does not give up, the colonist is not to blame." With colonization, he believed, such negative consequences as diseases that are fatal for "foreigners", the decline of the traditional economy and even famine, "mental shocks and oppressive affects" are inevitably associated. Yadrintsev explained such obvious contradictions in his views by the fact that in the colonial question he builds "antitheses according to the Hegel-Pierre-Jacques method."

The economic aspect of the colonial issue was also difficult to resolve in the theoretical constructions of the regionalists. They inextricably linked the future of Siberia with its industrial development. Yadrintsev informs Potanin with obvious pleasure that in the person of Malthus he "found a new friend of Siberia", as he proves that Siberia suffers from its excess of raw materials. Only the development of its own industry will increase the value of labor and allow Siberia to throw off the "manufacturing yoke" of Moscow. Therefore, the regionalists were ready to put up with capitalism in the name of the industrial upsurge of Siberia. “So, manufactories and manufactories,” cried Yadrintsev, “if only under a capitalist economy, this is the means to raise the country.” One should not focus only on the image of the “dark sides of factory labor” and forget about its cultural significance; under its influence, a new worldview and more civilized social relations are being formed.

In Siberia, there is no need to be afraid of the bourgeoisie, it is important to involve it in the implementation of regionally significant tasks. “Her role,” added Yadrintsev, “will be to gather the people, arrange the establishment of a manufactory, and the best organization will subsequently be born in this institution, as a new need.” For the time being, it is important to combine the organizational and financial possibilities of the bourgeoisie with the needs of the people. “Strength in unity!” he proclaimed. The hour of war with the bourgeoisie in Siberia has not yet struck. In our country, bourgeois instincts are much weaker than those of Western Europe, and besides, they should be of benefit to "young countries, being identified with the motive of enterprise." The task of the regionally minded intelligentsia for this period was to assist and point out to the bourgeoisie its cultural mission—the formation of industry. The democratic intelligentsia, together with the people in Siberia, will not allow the formation of a monetary aristocracy. After all, Siberian society, democratic in its essence, Yadrintsev explained, is like the North American States. Only when industry has been created should one set about limiting the bourgeoisie and "begin the emancipation of the urban worker."

Tariff policy should become an important tool for the development of Siberia's economic independence. Criticizing protectionism, which benefits only the mother country, the regionalists are also cautious about the principle of free trade. Siberia, which does not have its own industry, Yadrintsev believed, needs more than just protectionism, it needs "industrial patronage." Even G. Ch. Carey Yadrintsev found the protectionist system narrow and imperfect. He demanded state guardianship from the government in the name of the economic development of Siberia. This policy should be directed, firstly, to the accelerated colonization of the region; secondly, to the development of technical education; and, thirdly, to "promoting the founding of factory industry by moral influence, through technical congresses and societies, literature, etc."

Along with the history of the colonies and colonial policy, the regionalists turn to the study of the position of the provinces in Europe, primarily in France, England and Switzerland. Yadrintsev devotes a special article to him, "The Fate of the Province and the Provincial Question in France," in which he comes to a very significant conclusion: "What a terrible example France has set with its centralized province." It was centralization that led France to defeat in the Franco-Prussian war and to revolution. Even the decentralization measures carried out in France, as Yadrintsev noted - all from the same Paris, mean only "strengthening the power of the prefects, i.e. increase in administrative tutelage over the province. Provincial reform, he concludes, "must be born out of something alive in the people and in the province itself." Following "in the footsteps of Pierre-Jacques" (Proudhon. - A.R.), Yadrintsev becomes one of the most prominent Russian advocates and theorists of decentralization. Adherence to centralism—whether autocratic or "Jacobin"—was equally distasteful to the regionalists. This was one of the serious points of their disagreement with many Russian revolutionary democrats, such as G. E. Blagosvetlov or N. V. Shelgunov. In the works of regionalists, the provincial theme rises to the height of ideological comprehension.

However, the Western experience, primarily America, averted the regionalists from the absolutization of many theoretical positions. They understood that any country, as a natural organism, must go through certain stages of development. Therefore, the questions raised in Siberia seem to them not only purely territorial, caused by natural and other conditions, they acquire a general historical character. Excessive decentralization must be moderated by centralized measures (this has already been done in the US), just as the development of industry brings social problems to the fore. But Siberia has not yet grown up to this, has not had time to take advantage of either the fruits of decentralization or the benefits of industry. In this regard, Yadrintsev wittily noted that every dish at the table is served in a certain sequence. Europeans and Americans have already dined and are drinking coffee, and therefore it would be unwise to offer them herring again. “It seems to me,” he remarks in a letter to Potanin, “that our industrial issue is also a herring. Do not develop your manufactories, do not eat herring, it will make you sick. “Yes, it’s good for you, dear sir, to say this when you have already eaten, but I have not yet had dinner, and I have not had a snack either.”

Yadrintsev defined the goal of his theoretical searches in the colonial question as follows: "From all the negative aspects of European colonization, I made up the positive ideal of the colony and began to look for it." He is clearly not satisfied with some trends in British colonial policy. He strongly objects to the sale of land in large plots, which will lead to the dispossession of the land of the mass of colonists and will necessarily require the creation, if not of slaves, then of laborers. Yes, and the principle of free trade, proclaimed by England, Yadrintsev believed, “in the hands of the bourgeoisie is the same as Railway and machines for the exploitation of the worker.

He calls the new colonial policy of England the policy of refined exploitation. Having given self-government to the colonies, the metropolis defends economic dependence. Another important conclusion that Yadrintsev comes to as a result of studying the evolution of the British colonial system is that there is a direct connection between the capitalist character of the industry of the mother country and its attitude towards the colonies. Only social reform in England itself, in his opinion, can lead to the final elimination of the economic exploitation of the colonies. Economic inequality is the last stage in the exploitation of the colonies, and must inevitably be followed by a general change in international relations on the basis of equality and freedom. Then, concludes Yadrintsev, "colonial policy is one of the noblest forms of mutual friendship, assistance and exchange of services among equal kindred nations between equals." In this iridescent perspective, drawn by the regionalists, one can see the clear influence of Louis Blanc.

The social significance of this theoretical constructs gave the study of different types of communities in Russia and the West. According to Potanin, direct analogies of Siberia and the North American States are not always correct. They differ not only in relation to the connection with the metropolis, but also in the spirit itself. He saw the guarantee of the future development of Siberia in the communal, artel beginning. It was extremely important for him to point out the difference that existed between Siberian and American colonization. If in North America, Potanin argues, the land was declared the property of "the pope or the state", then the people inhabited Siberia "in a prehistoric manner." Therefore, in Siberia, a community had to be formed - after all, the land remained "free, not enslaved either to the owners or to the state."

In Central Russia, however, the community has been ravaged by serfdom; it is being destroyed by ever-increasing individualism. “It is known that colonies,” Potanin sums up under his reasoning theoretical basis, - always develop those principles that originated in the metropolis, but could not find a sufficiently wide application. This law is confirmed in the same North American States ... If the American States were the realization best principles developed by the science of the 18th century, then Siberia, as the newest colony, can assimilate the best advanced results of the science of the 19th century. For the regionalists, the community was represented as a cell that "decides the fate of peoples." According to Yadrintsev, "the regional issue has not lost its significance, it has acquired even more, just like the communal one, the issues of communities and cantons, as the seed of state life." This phrase directly echoes the conclusion of Alexis de Tocqueville that the community is "the basis of the foundations of the management of society." It is in it, Tocqueville believes, that the American citizen joins the government, gets used to the established order, gets a clear idea of ​​the nature of his duties and the scope of his rights. Among the British and Americans, according to the regionalists, "the rural community breathes life and is taught by self-government to coalition and association." It was from the community that the principle of federalism itself organically grew. With the help of the community, Yadrintsev believed, a whole range of problems could be solved, from colonial to social. Therefore, it is necessary not only to preserve the community from destructive individualism, but it is important to give it a new direction in development. It should, under favorable circumstances, provide the possibility of a more convenient transition to new forms of civilization. The destructive tendencies affected the Siberian community to a lesser extent than the Russian one. The community must take a step from community farming to community farming. It was Siberia, Potanin believed, that should make this transition, in this global importance. “I don’t understand,” Potanin wrote about this, “why should we follow the same path with Europe? Why can't an old brick be useful in a new building? ... I think that this brick can be recommended to be inserted into an aluminum palace. In this one can also see the influence of Proudhon with his ideas of the synthesis of community and property, the idealization of small property and the organization free associations. “In the associative movement, as in the sea of ​​keys, all social questions find their end: both labor, and women's, and pedagogical, and colonial.” At the same time, Potanin names another Western prophet: "Saint-Simon is the Prometheus of the future."

From the communal organization of life, the regionalists went to clarify the social and economic role of cooperation. It should be noted that the theories of cooperation were very popular at that time thanks to Chernyshevsky, Western European socialists, especially Louis Blanc. But in contrast to them, the regionalists sought to apply cooperative forms of labor organization to the cause of colonizing the outskirts. That is why they so persistently collect and study the experience of cooperation in the English colonies in Canada and New Zealand.

But the attitude towards the community among the regionalists was never self-sufficient (to a greater extent with Yadrintsev than with Potanin, who was clearly more passionate about populist doctrines). They always connected the communal question with regionalism. For them, this synthesis was a kind of foundation. In connection with these tasks, the role of the intelligentsia must also change radically. It should stop being cosmopolitan and be more interested in folk life. Yadrintsev reproaches the intelligentsia for groundlessness, “her dreams are vast, but in practice their activity is insignificant and unrealizable, her views are centralized, everything comes down to one plan, to one measure coming out of the center, but no one thinks to take up the education of the people, meanwhile, as soon as in this education lies the strength of institutions and the strength of reform.” Life cannot be transformed according to one plan and at once, "this requires a long preparation and perception of ideas among the masses." Only with such guides Russia "does not need to work out on its own, what Europe has come to, it will only have to take and instill the best" .

The regionalists tried to bring social, colonial and decentralization issues into one general theoretical system. Yadrintsev took credit for the fact that he managed to "bring fresh water to the colonial question," which he connected with the internal development of the metropolis and connected it with the social question. “In this way,” Yadrintsev concluded, “I brought the private colonial interest into confrontation with the general human interest, as in the case of exile, and called world progress as witnesses and judges.”36 This explains Yadrintsev’s appeal to the “decentralization primer” of Alexis de Tocqueville , federalist ideas P.-J. Proudhon, economic works of A. Smith, G.-Ch. Carey, K. Marx, D. Mill and others.

The intense theoretical search among the regionalists is permanently colored by a special feeling of Siberian patriotism. Figuratively characterizing the period of the Western apprenticeship of the Russian intelligentsia, Yadrintsev recalls the tale of the boy Karym, who had many teachers and was taught different sciences but he still didn't know what to do. But another teacher appeared who taught him little: love. And only then his knowledge received a practical application. Therefore, Yadrintsev opposed the oblivion of patriotism, which in the West is pushed aside by the desire for the "emancipation of labor." He was annoyed by the craze of Russian youth for this "religion of advanced Europe." With obvious displeasure, he noted that young people have become unnecessarily Europeanized and "unconditionally listen to every word of the teachers of the West and obey." The patriotic and national idea seems to the regionalists to be more relevant for Siberia than the "struggle against capital", because it contains part of the ideal of human development - autonomy. From this, Potanin's enthusiastic attitude to the national feelings of the Swiss is completely understandable: "Such a colossal patriotism in such a small society."

For the ideologists of regionalism, it was important to find a formula for combining Siberian patriotism with the universal desire for freedom and justice. But in this theoretical construction, nevertheless, it was patriotism that was the only soil on which one could transfer contemporary ideals. In a letter to Potanin in 1873, Yadrintsev wrote:

“The ideals of universal development will be accepted, they are carried in the modern air, they will also pass into the emerging nationality, but they must be given ground, it is necessary to engender a fiery patriotic love for their people.”

That is why the regionalists equally opposed the unifying centralization of both the tsarist bureaucracy and the “idealist cosmopolitans” from the revolutionary and liberal camps. Louis Blanc, one of the Western apostles of the Russian socialists, they considered hopelessly outdated. Yadrintsev’s verdict sounds categorical: “Louis Blanism died along with its creator…, the doctrine that brought in a particle of light has now become conservative and has ended its service, it has become impractical, just like its centralized state lining.” When Western social doctrines began to contradict the Siberian patriotic feeling, the regionalists did not hesitate to abandon them, introducing their own, sometimes significant, adjustments.

So, Yadrintsev complained that he constantly stumbles upon "a jamb of the cosmopolitan-social issue that has developed its own template." K. Marx argued (and “they say it’s good,” admitted Yadrintsev) that emigration from the metropolis harms it from the point of view of economic development, but this clearly contradicted the orientation of the regionalists to expand colonization. Potanin, on the other hand, offered to enter into a debate with Marx, arguing that “to keep from colonization, moreover, simply not to encourage colonization, means to create in one part the globe exploitation center. On the contrary, he suggests, "not only Russian central capital must make a loan to our East, but even England, if only she wants to be a humane nation of the nineteenth century." The example of the regionalists clearly shows that Russian public figures dealt with Western ideas in a very utilitarian way, and when they did not suit them completely, they did not hesitate to build their theories on top of them, applying them to Russian reality. The regional ideology was a Siberia-oriented complex fusion of Russian social messianic hopes with Western social doctrines. From the variety of Western teachings, there was a purposeful selection of only those that corresponded to the ideological expectations of the regionalists. It was also an attempt not only to accept Western ideas and experience, but also the desire to develop their own, in many respects original, teachings about the ways of development of Siberia. Potanin formulated his attitude to Western science in this way: “It is necessary to translate from a foreign language not into a language, this is not enough, but into forms of Russian life, into forms of Russian feeling.” This is another aspect of the problem of "Russia and the West".

NOTES

1. Cit. By: Sesyunina M. G. G.N.Potanin and N.M. Yadrintsev - the ideologists of Siberian regionalism (on the question of the class essence of Siberian regionalism in the second half of the 19th century). Tomsk, 1974, p. 93.
2. Berezin I.I. Metropolis and colony // Otechestvennye zapiski. 1858. Nos. 3–5.
3. Potanin T. N. Memories // Literary heritage of Siberia. Novosibirsk, 1983. T. 6. S. 80.
4. Peyzyn G. G. Historical sketch of the colonization of Siberia // Sovremennik. 1859. No. 9.
5. Letters of G. N. Potanin. Irkutsk, 1987. T. I. S. 58.
6. There. pp. 65–66.
7. There. S. 92.
8. Yadrintsev N. M. Siberia as a colony. SPb., 1982. S. 698–720.
9. Eastern outlook. 1884. 13 Sept. and 4 Oct.
10. There. 1884. 4 Oct.
11. There.
12. Letters from N.M. Yadrintsev to G.N. Potanin. Krasnoyarsk, 1918. Issue. 1. S. 24–25.
13. A week. 1872. Nos. 39–40.
14. European colonial policy and Russians in the East // Eastern Review. 1889. 20 Aug.
15. Letters from N. M. Yadrintsev to G. N. Potanin. S. 52.
16. There. S. 85.
17. There. S. 86.
18. N.M. Yadrintsev repeated the same idea on the pages of the Nedelya newspaper (Nedelya. 1873. Feb. 4).
19. Letters from N. M. Yadrintsev to G. N. Potanin. S. 113.
20. There. S. 141.
21. Collection of selected articles, poems and feuilletons by Nikolai Mikhailovich Yadrintsev. Krasnoyarsk, 1919, pp. 153–154.
22. Letters from N. M. Yadrintsev to G. N. Potanin. S. 200.
23. There. S. 87.
24. There. S. 37.
25. There. S. 38.
26. Letters of G. N. Potanin. T. 1. S. 99–100.
27. There. S. 97.
28. State archive of the Omsk region. F. 3. Op. 15. D. 18753. L. 8–9.
29. Letters from N. M. Yadrintsev to G. N. Potanin. S. 76.
30. Tocqueville A. Democracy in America. M., 1992. S. 71, 79.
31. Letters from N. M. Yadrintsev to G. N. Potanin. S. 120.
32. Letters of G. N. Potanin. T. I. C. 120.
33. There. Irkutsk, 1988. T. 2. S. 101.
34. Letters from N. M. Yadrintsev to G. N. Potanin. S. 71.
35. There. S. 70.
36. There. S. 38.
37. There. S. 179.
38. Letters of G. N. Potanin. T. 2. S. 79.
39. Letters from N. M. Yadrintsev to G. N. Potanin. S. 180.
40. There. S. 75.
41. There. pp. 192–193.
42. Letters of G. N. Potanin. T. 1. S. 150.
43. There. T. 2. S. 75.

support us

Your financial support goes to pay for hosting, text recognition and programmer services. In addition, this is a good signal from our audience that the work on the development of Sibirskaya Zaimka is in demand by readers.