the Analysis of historiographic researches

Attempts of historiographic generalisation of history of occurrence, activity and political  destruction of Party of socialists-revolutionaries in a historical science were undertaken repeatedly. Perhaps, the first of them can consider the bibliographic sketch prepared sotsial - democrats - menshevikami JU.
O.Martovym, P.P.Maslov, A.N.Potresovym. It has been published in multivolume «Histories ' U'U Social movement in Russia in the XX-th century beginning ». Authors of a sketch pursued quite pragmatical aim: to show "Advantages" of social democracy, and "lacks" of populism and of this context addressed to history PSR and the literature on it. The strongly pronounced political orientation of the publication was showed in tipologizatsii the works listed in it. One of them (B.V.Savinkova, V.M.Chernova's publicism) Were characterised as "proeserovskie" and idealising history eserovskogo movements. Others, for example, articles and P.B.Akselroda, J.O.Martova, A.N.Potresova's books were estimated positively as comprised the powerful critical charge directed against eserov, accused in «a narrow doctrinaire attitude», «political inexperience» and the rate on «too various social strata of the population» - proletariat, labour peasantry and democratic intelligency. The judgement stated in a sketch was reduced to that the party eserov has arisen exclusively thanks to lifting of weights in days of the first Russian revolution, and after its defeat it has appeared in a strip of sharp crisis and has lost political authority. SHCH 22 History of social movement in Russia in the XX-th century beginning. Т.IV. SPb., 1912. S.143-157. The conclusion about "doubtfulness" eserovskih ideologem and necessities to estimate history PSR in a channel sotsial - democratic критики28 From here became. It is necessary to recognise, that deep historiographic tradition during the pre-October period to social democrats to put in pawn it was not possible, however, and such they to themselves did not put the purpose, as worked in a genre of political publicism, creating «history of today» as the initial sketch of the future scientific history of time. Attempt following on time to generalise analytical decisions and conclusions about party history eserov has been undertaken in revolution 1917 - 1922 In 1922 have been published the review of the literature on Party of the socialists-revolutionaries, the prepared S.Ingulovym29. Occurrence of this work was not casual - in Moscow there passed process on business of party leaders of socialists-revolutionaries which has led to occurrence of variety of books and articles exposing «counterrevolutionary activity» PSR. S.Ingulova's article which author was besides limited only to transfer of the appeared publications, without their critical judgement also has been devoted the analysis of this literature. Then there was a review of the literature on Committee of members of the Constituent assembly where eserovskaja the subjects have been presented among others материалов30. It is necessary to ascertain, that in the literature 1930 - the middle of 1950th interest to party eserov considerably decreases, having affected historiographic working out of a theme. At this stage there was no historiographic work.
After XX congress of the CPSU before the Soviet historians new possibilities have opened, including at research of historiographic problems. First, really scientific attempt of historiographic generalisation of the literature on party eserov has undertaken JI.М.Спирин. At a seminar spent by edition of magazine «Questions of history of the CPSU» 23 - on December, 24th, 1965, its report taken as a principle of article «the Historiography of struggle RKP (with petty-bourgeois parties has been heard in L / 1917 - 1920 ». The historian believed, that the first istoriografom parties eserov is V.I.Lenin. In its works, confirmed L.M.Spirin, the analysis of a social base and class essence of socialists-revolutionaries, criticism of their outlook, the program and tactics contains, the basic stages of its evolution from« petty-bourgeois revolutionism "," conciliation »to counterrevolution are defined a party place in political history of Russia. L.M.Spirin has correctly noticed, that the majority of the books published in 1920th and brochures had sharply propaganda character, and the basic attention of historians of those years has been turned by time of Bolshevist revolution and Civil war. At the same time he considered as essential achievement of a historiography of the given period« the statement of the partijno-class approach », given the chance even at an early stage of the Soviet historical science to overcome« concepts of a petty-bourgeois historiography eserov and 27 menshevikov »and to see the main defining tendencies in history eserovskoj parties. JI.М.Спирин Has critically estimated a condition of working out of a problem in 1930 - the middle of 1950th The conclusion it Gave reason negative influence of consequences of a cult of personality of I.V.Stalina and the general stagnation in a historical science of those years. The historian has turned the main attention for the works which have appeared after XX congress of the CPSU. In its opinion, historiographic traditions and research receptions, characteristic for the historical literature as a whole at this time have been put in pawn. Among the last were called the reference to V.I.Lenina's works, former figures PSR of A.A.Argunova, G.A.Gershuni, V.M.Zenzinova, V.M.Chernova, and also the gendarme colonel A.I.Spiridovicha, use of archival sources. There was obligatory a definition of an urgency of a theme, the reference to a Marxist-Leninist method of knowledge, ascertaining of leading tendencies in development of a historiography of a theme, and also the characteristic foreign sovetologii as "falsifikatorskoj". Allocation of historiography PSR in an independent theme has been connected with scientific activity of researchers of history of political parties of Russia - O.A.Volobueva, K.V.Guseva, M.I.Leonova, V.I.Millera, L.M.Spirina, T.A.Sivohinoj, A.I.Utkina and V.V.Shelohaeva that provided certain level of professionalism in its working out. On the other hand, among the lacks inherent in works of the Soviet authors of those years, istoriografy marked weak interest to research of the reasons of occurrence of party eserov and by the pre-October period of its existence as a whole. So, Z.Z.Miftahov wrote: «One historians only criticise« the labour beginning », uravnitelnost, socialisation, etc., other histories of party of socialists-revolutionaries of the period till 1907 only« in passing », in connection with studying of its history of later period, the period of decomposition and disappearance of this party» 31 concern. According to V.N.Gineva, weak interest to research of the reasons of occurrence PSR spoke that process of studying of populism as predecessors PSR proceeded extremely non-uniformly. V.N.Ginev connected it with the representations which have affirmed in 1930th about populism as «the most malicious enemy of Marxism» and accents on so-called "liberal" populism, which after the publication «the Short course. Histories VKP (» it was proclaimed forerunner PSR. Thereupon the historian has subjected to criticism of the publication of previous decades, in particular, M.G.Shestakov, propagandising this thesis. The offered V.N.Ginevym the scheme of ideological fight of Marxism with populism started with a recognition of populism as real political force in pre-revolutionary Russia and simultaneous ascertaining of crisis of its ideology in the classical form. A consequence of it, the scientist believed, there was a transformation of petty-bourgeois socialism narodnicheskogo type, which one lifting and crisis has gone through in Russia yet before definitively to descend from the historical 30 Arenas. The historiographic analysis of works about Party occurrence The socialists-revolutionaries, undertaken in 1970th, usually it was carried out within the limits of historical researches, anticipating author's researches as the introduction review left before the literature. Mentioning class and ideological communication of party eserov with narodovoltsami, all researchers reduced its formation to the description of association of some groups and circles under the name of the socialists-revolutionaries who have arisen in 1890th in Russia and abroad. So, V.G.Horos, marking an attention lack to revolutionary populism of 1890th which were Predecessors eserov, paid attention on odnostoronnost "negativist" подхода32. V.N.Ginev who has underlined has paid attention To the same circumstance, that besides not enough studied question on struggle between sotsial - other undeveloped problems are democrats and socialists-revolutionaries also. In particular, «disputes in neopopulism concerning tactics in peasantry and practical activities of petty-bourgeois parties in village» 33. Analyzing K.V.Guseva's work «Party eserov: From Petty-bourgeois revoljutsionarizma to counterrevolution », V.N.Ginev has noted an illogicality of some judgements of the author: «On the one hand, deepening of ideological and organizational crisis of populists, with another - occurrence of the new organisations» 34 is underlined. At the same time V.N.Ginev has made Generalising conclusion, that the Soviet historiography as a whole has answered about the reasons of occurrence of party eserov. In its opinion, it consists in a Lenin estimation «backwardness of economy and backwardness of contradictions in village, prevalence RUSSIAN 41 THE STATE LIBRARY Petty-bourgeois weights, approach of bourgeois-democratic revolution. Each revolutionary lifting means involving in struggle of new layers oppressed and dissatisfied, first of all wide layers of the petty-bourgeois weights bringing in movement the prejudices, the reactionary imaginations, the weaknesses and errors »35. As believed V.M.Katushkin, in the Soviet historiography eserov the pre-October period it was possible to show, that the small proprietor became social base PSR, its agrarian program had dual character, on the one hand, progressive, democratic and revolutionary, with another "petty-bourgeois" illusions, an idealistic sight at the state and its role in capitalist России36. Concerning tactics eserov, wrote V.M.Katushkin, historians have come to conclusion about «peace co-habitation of the left phrase and the right sotsial-reformism. On the one hand, esery exaggerated reactionism of the Russian bourgeoisie, with another - went on 36 Agreements with liberals ». In struggle against autocracy esery should see in Bolsheviks of allies, however in the polemic of more attention gave RSDRP, instead of to cadets. Istoriograf has explained it to that, according to the Soviet historians, esery saw in Bolsheviks of the most dangerous Competitors in struggle for influence on peasantry. Among the problem questions requiring profound studying, V.M.Katushkin named history of activity PSR in army, among 38 Intelligency, and also in emigration. As believed K.V.Gusev, JI. M.Spirin and V.V.Shelohaev, the present splash in creative activity among the historians who were engaged in studying of history of Party of socialists - of revolutionaries, has occurred in second half 1960th years. They gave reason for the conclusion issue in 1968 5 large monographies devoted eseram. Registration of a domestic historiography of "petty-bourgeois" parties has been marked also by carrying out of some conferences and symposiums in Kalinin. And if in 1975 on the first symposium 31 report and the message on the following, in 1979, it has been heard already 56 reports and messages have been made. The third symposium in 1981 became even more representative. As consequence, the domestic historical science has replenished with a number of collections on multi-party system history in Russia, including on a problem historiography. Active process of studying of multi-party system has found reflexion in historiographic researches of the various plan. The part from them has been specially devoted socialists - to revolutionaries, others considered works on history PSR Together with works about others political партиях37. Historiographic researches 1970 - 1980., except the analysis of a historical problematics, contained answers to such questions, as the organisation of scientific researches during this or that period of development of a domestic science, their influence on statement and the decision of concrete questions of history eserov. The Principal view of historiographic researches 70 - 80. Of XX century of a steel of article and theses of scientific performances at conferences. Besides conferences and symposiums in the Eagle (1985), Tambov (1987), Riga (1986) and besides in Kalinin (1986) where under the guidance of V.V.Komina the whole direction on studying of "not proletarian" parties was generated, the successful collective monography «Neproletarsky parties of Russia has been published as a whole. A history lesson» (M, 1984) in which the analysis of studying of history of all way of party eserov is included, from occurrence and before leaving from a political arena. V.V.Shelohaev, O.V.Volobuyev, V.I.Miller, acted in a role istoriografov, stating an estimation to researches of that period, have paid attention to necessity of clearing of those questions on which there were different interpretations or it gave different estimations. There was a wish to study and show how for what account of reserves eserov and menshevikov it was possible to appear to parties in the first months of February revolution at the head of Councils, to head democratic opposition to Provisional government, having pushed aside from this role Bolshevik party. The complex of the researches published in 1960 - did not answer 1980 th, in their opinion, on these questions. The historiographic literature of this period causes an ambiguous estimation. Its authors were guided by methodology and the periodization which has appeared in a domestic historical science after XX congress of the CPSU. The historiography of those years was influenced by cargo of former, rather tendentious representations about history of the country, generated klassovo - formatsionnym the approach quite often vulgarised. Spread from above, this approach spread from above could not lead to an objective estimation of products of some historians, whose sights did not keep within frameworks of the official concept. It first of all concerned criticism of achievements of a foreign historiography in the field of studying of history of party эсеров38. It is characteristic, that works such left much more, than devoted to the analysis of the domestic scientific literature. Practically each Soviet researcher has taken part in «scientific exposure of bourgeois falsifiers of history» 39. Only from the end of 1980th position began to vary. Most benevolently Soviet historians have concerned M.Hildermajera40's creativity though also to its works role exaggeration eserov was incriminated «, preference of their chances of a victory compared with social democrats in general and Bolsheviks in particular» 41. The important place in works of historians was occupied with a problem of a periodization of domestic historiography PSR. The Lenin concept of history of the Soviet society and public thought of Russia has been put In its basis. Obligatory making this periodization specification was considered, that in works of the Soviet researchers the history of struggle of Bolsheviks against attempts eserov is analyzed and other parties to dethrone the Soviet power. In 1960th at the initiative of K.V.Guseva there was a following periodization of domestic historiography PSR: the First stage (1920 - the middle of 1930th) was characterised by formation of the Soviet historical science, occurrence of the first works about party eserov. It was specified in a special role of litigation of 1922 over its leaders as "push" to theme working out. According to researchers, works of this period differed publitsistichnostju, attention only to the separate parties of history PSR (mainly to "counterrevolutionary activity»), narrow circle of the involved sources. Specified "lacks" spoke quite objective reasons (a low level of development of the Soviet historical science as a whole and political strike problems) and did not belittle the main thing - an accurate Bolshevist position of authors 1920 - the beginnings of 30th years. At the second stage (the middle 1930 - the middle of 1950th) special works about eserah almost were absent. The given problematics was mentioned only in passing in works on history VKP (). However here again, despite so strong negative influence of "cult of personality", the Soviet historians found to all an explanation: ideological problems of party during the new period have changed, it and had been caused «some odnostoronnost» givings considered проблем42. It is necessary to specify in historical conditionality of such approach which was defined by problems of ideological work of party during this period and, in particular, problems of communistic education of mullions-strong weights of the petty-bourgeois population of the country, struggle against attempts of the organisation illegal anti-Soviet деятельности43. There were also positive moments - the step forward according to struggle of Bolsheviks against socialists-revolutionaries has been made. Within the limits of the developed periodization the third period (from the middle of 1950th) especially was allocated. It was noticed, that it is marked by considerable growth of number of works about socialists - revolutionaries, expansion of a problematics of researches, involving in a scientific turn of a considerable quantity of new sources. The questions which before were not involving attention of the Soviet historians (for example, activity PSR in Councils, party splits) are put; on separate problems discussions (about number PSR, occurrence time in the USSR of an one-party system) are developed. The lacks inherent in the Soviet historiography at the given stage, communicated basically with incomplete illumination of those or other moments of history PSR. According to some modern researchers, «the specified scheme contains variety of the true positions, many lines of development of the Soviet historiography, 1960-1980th years noticed in reviews, do not cause doubts. However the majority of basic estimations requires revision» 44. Despite a critical orientation of similar judgements of A.J.Suslova, with them nevertheless it is difficult to agree, at least, in full. So, in the offered periodization the pre-October stage of domestic historiography PSR which can be characterised as initial in studying of history of party eserov was not considered. Moreover, hardly it is possible to support supporters of the given scheme of initial frameworks of the second stage Problem historiographies. More likely they should be carried not to the middle of 1930th, and to their beginning. As the basis for this specification I.V.Stalina's known letter in magazine edition «Proletarian revolution» (1931) «can serve About Some questions of history of the Bolshevism »in which have been openly proclaimed ideology dictatorship over a science, contempt for a historic fact and historicism principles. In introduction article of the collection published in 1989 «Neproletarsky parties of Russia in three revolutions» O.V.Volobuyev, V.I.Miller and V.V.Shelohaev have made an attempt a withdrawal from the offered K.V.Gusevym of a periodization in studying of history of party eserov. On a problem they dated the beginning of the third stage of historical researches not the middle of 1950th, and 1963, connecting it with issue of the book of K.V.Guseva «Crash of party left eserov» and the studying beginning of directly history of party eserov. Besides, they have allocated the fourth stage which has received, in their opinion, formation in 1975 in connection with the organisation of the first scientific conference in Kalinin. From our point of view, the third period of history of studying of party eserov nevertheless originates in 1956-1957 when in a number of publications of the Leningrad historians qualitatively new approaches to studying of history of the "petty-bourgeois" parties refusal of unequivocal treatment of a role became which consequence were showed L about eserov as «White Guards and foreign spies». Allocation of the fourth stage would be more logical for carrying to the end of 1980th when has occurred having dug in sights at the Russian multi-party system, the new methodological situation began to be formed. As a result partijno-political movement in Russia began to be considered as the difficult and integral phenomenon, taking into account all elements making it, and not just as history of struggle of Bolsheviks pro or contra. Noted tendencies have found the display and in research work on party studying eserov. O.V.Volobuyev, V.I.Miller and V.V.Shelohaev focused attention of researchers on studying of all periods and aspects of activity of political parties of Russia, marked positive shifts in overcoming "kratkokursovoj" methodology, suggested to use more actively achievements and results of a world historical science. They wrote, that «now the logic of researches brings to necessity of studying and the initial stages of history of these parties, a research urgency as as a whole across Russia, and in separate regions, influence degree on 49 Weights ». The analysis of agrarian programs and other documents of party eserov, spent by O.V.Volobuyev, V.I.Millerom and V.V.Shelohaevym, has led to their conclusion, that socialists - revolutionaries struggled for an establishment in Russia the power of liberal bourgeoisie, taking away themselves only a role parliamentary оппозиции45. Today it is difficult to agree with this conclusion, as well as with the author's statement about incompleteness in 1905-1907 of process of evolution narodnicheskih the organisations in mass political party. Researches of last decade have confirmed also an inconsistency occurring in Soviet, and in a pre-October historiography of judgement about eserah as exclusively conspiratorial and terrorist organisation. Soviet historiography PSR has passed difficult enough way, having reflected fluctuations of a political conjuncture. It was a part of the general Soviet historiography, having reflected its characteristic lines - politizirovannost and monoideology domination. The Soviet historiography as a whole represented history of socialists-revolutionaries as evolution from «Petty-bourgeois revoljutsionarizma» to anti-Soviet and counterrevolutionary activity, logic image ended with  destruction eserov, both right, and left. Tactics of Bolsheviks, according to the Soviet historians, has only accelerated this quite natural process. Modern domestic researchers have refused stereotypic representations about a role of "petty-bourgeois" parties, having returned to them own "lifetime" name - socialist. At the same time sincere desires of domestic historians deideologizirovat and depolitizirovat a historical science as a whole, in our opinion, have ended with failure. Vital realities have quickly buried these dreams. Under S.V.Tjutjukina's remark, «history, a policy and ideology are twins, to separate which from each other even more difficultly, than Siamese brothers and sisters» 46. In its opinion, the historical science always turned the looks, first of all, to the power and isteblishmentu which gave, give, and will give both the social order, and material feed. It is thought, these words can be carried and to modern historiography PSR, and to the general background on which it develops today when seeming absence of censorship does not cancel actions of such dictators, as "spirit of the age", historiographic "fashion", self-censorship, requirements of the book market etc. Nevertheless multi-party system revival in Post-Soviet Russia should be reflected in the general situation in a problem historiography. Characteristic lines of the present stage of generalisation of historical knowledge is slow, but steady growth of number of historiographic works. And istoriografami themes become as the researchers who were earlier engaged in history of the party, and engaged a historiography initially. In our opinion, the classical historiography worries now the revival. At least, steps to an estimation of a modern historiography of activity Russian, including socialist parties in revolution and Civil войны47 are already undertaken. (Historiographic notes)//Calling of the historian. M, 2001. С.7. With Fedorinov V. E. Multi-party system in Russia (a historiography problem)//the Russian civilisation: history and the present. Вып.5. Voronezh, 1999. S.150-165; meganov S.A.histor of political parties of Russia in days of October revolution and civil war (a problem historiography)//Russian civilisations: history and the present. Vyp. 11. Voronezh, 2001. S.226-236. In acknowledgement of this thesis it is possible to name a number of large works devoted to a revolution historiography. See: Zabolotnyj E.B.Russian a historiography of revolution of 1917 in Urals Mountains. Ekaterinburg, 1995; Kudinov N.T.domestic a historiography of revolution of 1917 in Russia (1917-1995): Diss.... dokt. ist. Sciences. M, 1998; Self-courts of Century of M. In this context it is necessary to allocate, at least, two modern centres of historiographic researches of history of Party of socialists-revolutionaries: Moscow (A.I.Zevelev, 53 J.P.Sviridenko, D.B.Pavlov, A.D.Stepansky) and Volga region (M.I.Leonov, A.L.Litvin) 48. There was a certain circle of young researchers of a theme - G.P.Kamneva, A.J.Suslov, A.V.Krylova (Sychenkova) 49. It is necessary to name also V.V.Ishina50 in which work the review of works of domestic and foreign authors on party history is resulted, estimations are given to some aspects of development of a historiography of a problem. A number of historiographic works was published by the author of the present 57 Dissertations. The basic conclusions of modern historiography PSR have been published in introduction to textbooks «History of political parties of Russia» (M, 1994), «Political parties of Russia: history and the present» (M, 2000), two books «Political history of Russia in parties and persons» (M, 1993, 1994), some other editions. They are reduced to the following: the history of political parties of Russia, including eserov, requires profound studying on the basis of the new case of sources and new historical thinking. Qualitatively new works which main task is complex studying of system of multi-party system in Russia are necessary. The history of political parties will be sound at research of parities between them, that will allow to reveal the general and especial in concrete practical activities. The further studying of the reasons and consequences of liquidation of multi-party system to Russia, and also development of the historiographic and source study researches analyzing party work PSR, strategy and tactics of these организаций51 is necessary. One of steps to this direction was made by G.P.Kamneva in which opinion the history periodization eserov not necessarily coincided with political and was defined not by change of political modes, and issue of proceedings. To the most developed sections of a domestic historiography of history PSR in 1960-1980th the historian has carried criticism foreign sovetologii, believing, that other aspects of a historiography eserov was shined fragmentary and поверхностно52. Among the political factors, made direct impact on studying of history PSR in the USSR, G.P.Kamneva named exposure of a cult of personality of I.V.Stalina. In its opinion, this phenomenon was characterised by the Soviet party science as introduced from the outside, and the conclusion about the latent penetration became eserovskoj ideologies on Wednesday political руководства53. Other political reason of the reference to party history eserov the author named a problem of "condemnation" of pseudo-socialism of "petty-bourgeois" parties in countries of Eastern Europe and cautions about danger of an alliance with them. According to G.P.Kamnevoj, the wave of modern terrorism has led to that the theme eserovskogo terror became again to one of the main plots of research of history of socialists - of revolutionaries in 1990 годы54. In particular, to party right eserov after October, 1917 a number of works of A.J.Suslova55 is devoted separate aspects of a problem. The author has considerably expanded a circle of the historiographic facts, has shown circumstances which influenced process of formation of historical knowledge. He writes, that separate tendencies of modern historiography PSR are noticed not quite precisely. So, authors of historiographic reviews (A.I.Zevelev, J.P.Sviridenko, D.B.Pavlov, A.D.Stepansky) noticed, that in 1990th "antinational" parties and movements became object of studying. However these parties, A.J.Suslov confirms, were actively enough studied and earlier in the Soviet science. The same concerns remarks of historians concerning studying "beginning" in 1990th of such themes, as «history of national parties» and «a historiography historiography» 56. In its opinion, the quantity of modern historiographic works on Menshevism history 10 times surpasses number of similar researches in a historiography of other parties, and special historiographic researches on history PSR in 1990th practically нет57. Thereupon, probably, it is necessary to agree with A.G.Dugina's who has specified in absence of modern political successors at eserov opinion that could not affect their historiographic interpretation деятельности58. Estimating dissertational works of predecessors, we will notice, that in bolshej to the historiographic analysis the literature devoted to occurrence PSR in the beginning of XX century, and its activity in the first years after Bolshevist revolution was exposed to a measure. The whole layers of the literature on other, not less important stages of history eserov, such as background eserovskogo movements in 1893-1901, 1907-1917, emigration, have dropped out of attention of authors. The literature devoted to leaders PSR and capital eserovskim to the organisations was analyzed mainly. The regional literature, and, as consequence as a result is insufficiently estimated, out of sphere of attention of authors there was the huge layer of the literature numbering more of 300 names of sources. G.P.Kamneva's basic attention and A.J.Suslov have turned on fighting and terrorist activity eserov, meanwhile not it was main. Such problems as the party organisation, mass propaganda activities, financial aspects did not become object of steadfast interest of researchers. We name also a number of private lacks of researches of predecessors. For example, in A.J.Suslova's dissertation the main question put by the author, «Why socialists - revolutionaries and could not come to power?» (с.5) mismatches a historiographic kind of work, possibly, other statement of a question «more would approach As there passed process of accumulation and generalisation of scientific knowledge on a problem?». In work the organisation of scientific researches is not shown, raises the doubts a periodization of researches in the USSR (с.9) and its absence concerning foreign works. Unfortunately, the historian has bypassed also such question as definition of object and a subject of the research, remained not clear the substantive provisions of the dissertation which are taken out by the author on protection. A.V.Sychenkova it is inexact has designated chronological frameworks of formation of historiography PLSR, having begun it since 1920, though the first publications levoeserovskih, eserovskih and Bolshevist authors 67 Concern spring of 1918. The researcher asserts, that the epoch of revolution and Civil war has not left some detailed, detailed works of figures PLSR. But on the basis of these works, by the way, not only statejnogo the character, published by party publishing house PLSR «Revolutionary socialism», having branches in Zurich, Berlin and Milan, L.Hefneru was possible to create the scale work on history PLSR. In our opinion, it is difficult to understand development tendencies Л7 Sychenkova A.V.Otchestvennaja a historiography of Party of the left socialists - of revolutionaries: avtoref. diss.... kand. ist. Sciences. Kazan, 2003. S.9-10. A modern domestic historiography without inclusion in its orbit of a historiographic heritage of Eurasians, without the analysis of works of historians of Russian abroad, without a foreign historiography. Considerable lack of works of authors-predecessors is ascertaining traditional already «full disappearance of works on history of political parties in 1930-1950th» But it is far not so. Though activity eserov during this period was studied superficially and only within the limits of struggle against them Bolsheviks, as an example it is possible to name variety of researchers, first of all in regions, with different degree of completeness studied and given estimations to socialists-revolutionaries in 1901-1918, including positive. It is difficult to agree with A.J.Suslova's maxim that conceptual bases of the Soviet historiography have been put in pawn only after October, 1917. As they have been proved V.I.Leninym, L.B.Kamenevym, L.D.Trotskim, J.O.Martovym in the first decade of the XX-th century. Raises the doubts and a conclusion of the Kazan historian that the image of socialists-revolutionaries as defenders of country interests was the main line of a foreign historiography, original socialists and демократов59. In our opinion, the foreign historiography is distinguished on the contrary by deep polarity of sights of researchers in party estimations eserov. Thus, a readiness condition it is necessary to recognise far not satisfactory, that does the present research especially actual. The fair will tell, that all named works in a different measure promote a reconstruction of an integral picture of a historiography eserov though from the diverse fragments which have been not connected by a uniform plan, it is impossible to reconstruct a historiography of history of Party of socialists - of revolutionaries as from splinters not to stick together the whole. It is obvious, that the modern historiography of party eserov has undergone essential changes in comparison with the last decades. However to assert, that in it concepts of historians are revealed and analysed, degree of a level of scrutiny of a problem, a gain of scientific knowledge on it is shown, are allocated poorly or not up to the end studied questions it would be incorrect. For today are not analysed as the historical problematics connected with history of party eserov, and the organisation of scientific researches in this area. Some authors mean by it set organizational, teoretiko-methodological, Source study bases against which the historical science during each concrete period of the развития60 leant. Is not present in historiographic works of predecessors and scientifically proved forecast of development of scientific knowledge about PSR in the long term though any modern historiographic work does not do without the list of recommendations among which there are fair wishes to interpret a historiography eserov not only from a position of socially - political history, but also with use sotsiokulturnyh подходов61. Actually individual publications present in modern historiographic researches the analysis of a foreign historiography. If all events of the first quarter of XX century in Russia were reduced, as it occurred in the West, to a simple antagonism of political parties and elite, and as the detached onlooker the people thus acted, it would be possible to assert, that the foreign historiography as a whole considered eserov as true defenders and spokesmen of proletarian and country interests. Today there is an impression, that all foreign historians stand on the same positions though it is far not so. The thorough knowledge of the foreign literature and sources Is necessary to understand, serious struggle between supporters and opponents at least three approaches and estimations is abroad conducted. The part of the western researchers on the former divides the Soviet interpretation of history PSR, others adhere to alternativeness positions eserovskogo a variant of "the third way» where socialists-revolutionaries really associated with true democrats and socialists, and, at last, the group of the historians standing on a position, the concept of is conservative-guarding establishments of Russia close as a matter of fact of the beginning of XX century in the relation eserov, in its various variants fruitfully enough works. Despite separate positive shifts in studying of a historiography of party eserov at the present stage, there are no bases to consider its working out finished. In the newest publications of the historiographic plan the first steps on conceptual updating of estimations of historical works are made, in particular, only. The further historiographic researches should help to reveal from an objectivity position a place and role PSR in the Russian history, to understand atmosphere of a revolutionary epoch when the people felt not only imperial citizens, but also people more deeply. 1.3.
<< | >>
A source: Kononenko, Anatoly Anatolevich. Historiography of the creation and activities of the Socialist Revolutionary Party in the years 1901-1922. / Thesis / Tyumen - 2005. 2005

More on topic the Analysis of historiographic researches:

  1. Historiographic researches 9.1. Monographies 9.1.1.
  2. §1.1. Essence of extraordinary jurisdiction in a historiographic retrospective show
  4. § 5. The economic analysis of the right in system of interdisciplinary researches
  5. chapter 1. Theoretical, historiographic and source study aspects of studying of a problem
  6. Results of experimental researches in the aerodynamic chamber and their analysis
  7. 2.4. The comparative analysis of results of researches 1983г. And 2013
  8. Comparison of the given experimental researches to results of the settlement analysis
  9. the Role and problems of the historical analysis of military-psychological researches
  12. the Condition of researches and the analysis of technical and algorithmic solutions in investigated area
  13. Chapter 1. The tool analysis in methodology of the civil Researches
  16. Chapter 1. The analysis of researches in the field of restoration of pins of mills
  18. generalisation and analysis Methodology administrativnodeliktologicheskih researches. Features of research of the latent form administrative deliktnosti