вход по аккаунту



код для вставки
UDC 93/94
A.V. Zabrovsky
Voronezh state university
Voronezh, Russia
[Крестьянские налоги и государственный бюджет России
по материалам газеты и журнала "вперед! "(1873-1877)]
It is analyzed narodnikis’ views on taxes from the peasants and their place in the national budget in the second
half of XIX century. Narodniki noted the leading role of the state in determining the allotment farmers magnitude tribute and redemption in the budget. Post, the purchase of land, Zemsky payments, expensive rent often exceeded the yield
of land peasants worsened their financial situation in the post-reform decade. The article highlights the role of a community that periodic redistributions leveled plots and land fee. P.L. Lavrov was in favor of tax reform, the reduction and
abolition of redemption payments. Study of fiscal policy and budget tsarist allowed narodniki go deeper into the postreform situation of the peasantry. They saw that the tax policy was determined by the economic situation of farmers.
However, as it is argued in the magazine taxable policy in the interests of the tsarist, rather than the interests and capabilities of the peasant economy took place.
Key words: redemption payments, tax, fiscal policy, the peasantry, the community, property, farm.
Ratings by P.L. Lavrov and his correspondents, the role and place of peasant taxes in shaping
Russia's budget were not sufficiently addressed. Most researchers believed that Lavrov had not
studied the economic situation of the people. According to the non-historians who, he did not notice
the impact of capitalism on the profitability of peasant farms and Russian fiscal policy [4], and the
authors of "Essays on the history of philosophical and political thought of the peoples of the USSR"
argued that populists have not seen in the developing capitalist country. [17] In the view of GD
Chesnokov, populists have not noticed, whether the country's accession to the capitalist path of development and defending the theory of peasant socialism seen in the peasant commune germ of socialism in post-reform Russia. [22]
Same talked about populism and SM Levin. This authoritative researcher noted chal-that populists downplayed the level of capitalist development in Russia, recognized his wali decline and even
regression. [15] In later works, such estimates have undergone certain correction. TM Kirichenko correctly pointed out that the newspaper «Vpered!» "Paid a lot of attention to the socio-economic phenomena of Russia" [3, p. 25]. In principle it agrees VY Barkalov noting that Lavrov "play a decisive
role of economic factors in society and in this close to historical materialism" [1, p. 99].
V.F. Antonov, I.S. Vakhrouchev, T.M. Kirichenko, M.D. Karpachev and other researchers
have noted that the coverage of the peasantry in the post-reform Russia occupies a leading position
in publications populist theoreticians and publicists.
Contradictory judgments about understanding Lavrov Russia's economic development and the
role of people in the reform process requires a detailed study of materials «Vpered!» And the creative heritage of Lavrov. Essential in journalism populists, in particular, had their assessment of
peasant taxes as a source of formation of the state budget. Correspondents and collaborators
N.G. Kulyabko-Koretsky, N.K. Sudzilovsky, V.N. Cherkezov, P.N. Tkachev and relentless
lennye-authors of a number of materials, describing the development of capitalism in industry, finance, agriculture, countries have repeatedly appealed to the government's tax policy. They figured
out the types and amounts of payments peasants, their place in the revenue side of the country and
the proportionality of farm income, sources described the budget and spending priorities. Particular
attention was paid to the procedure and rules for determining the duties, taxes and duties peasants,
methods of tax collection, and the views of correspondents problems were not identical, differed in
the interpretation of the irradiated matter.
P.L. Lavrov economic situation of farmers affected by many factors, including fiscal policy,
which he regarded as a special theme. He saw the subordination between the tax and fiscal policy of
the country, their importance for the peasantry: "Effect of the state economy is enormous: Luda our
taxpaying have to endure on their shoulders five hundred millionth budget and very clear that this is
beyond his power, that he is there , then the SNM overstrains "[7. 58]. Poll tax, replacing the currently logged back in 1724 homestead taxation, was the main direct tax for men tax-paying classes
regardless of age. In 1862, the collection of taxes was transferred conciliator, taxpaying supervision
since 1874 carried out the county police, and corrected nicknames directs the entire work in the
field. Lavrov, citing correspondent «Vpered!» Describes the situation of farmers and local officials:
"We know that the peasant and petty bourgeois-nin are ranked in Russia to the tax-paying classes ...
ISPRAVNIKOV conciliators and replaced them for their former landlords, who as-that accidentally
failed to keep right behind him patrimonial police "[8, p. 35].
Using readings landowner LB Turgenev presented commission research lished in 1872, the situation of agriculture in the province of Samara, Lavrov described the types and amount of cash payments peasants, their relationship with allotments and profitability of farms. Noting that "taxes are
great," landowner listed that makes peasant land "file 5 rubles per capita, and recently put on 10 rubles, redemption 7 p., Township expenses - 1 p. Priest - 1 p., public management 30-50 cents, total
account for allotment of 20 to 24 p., that the Stavropol district is 6 p. tithing ... Let the farmer will receive 15 p. per acre with its own processing, but because he still needs to feed and clothe. Finally
gave way peasant crop failure. "Lavrov cited and average figures payments put on the Samara province on materials referred Agricultural Commission, published in the "Moscow News", "monetary obligations of the peasants in some cases reach up to 6 p. 40 kopecks. per acre that farmers who received
a gift ¼ allotment, pay 10 times more than the Mennonites. Average, according to this study, we have
cash payments per acre: from Mennonite - 23 k, the colonists - 74 k, peasants corvee - 83 k, government - 87 k, owners - 2 p. 23 k, received ¼ put - 2 p. 32 k, quit-rent - 2 p. 83 k "[10, p. 39].
Several other data Lavrov cited in the summary table for 6 provinces, drawn-tion by him on
the numbers of "moderate and cautious," the source, which shows the board with ten-us, the amount
of per capita dues and arrears size lying on the population by 1 January 1872 .
Magazine «Vpered!», explains: "We should not forget - 1/6 of these spaces governor-tions
occupied lands uncomfortable. Monetary obligations of the land for some payers-ing in relation to
the normal income is between 160 to 210%. "For 3 - provinces Polessye author, according to
Lavrov, said the data "almost below the reality, since there peasants, not bailing on agriculture
means not only for taxes, but also for their sustenance, are not sufficient in the field of methods and
other earnings "[10, p. 42].
Different layout looked payments and profitability of farms in the provinces and the country
as a whole, reflecting "the general condition of the Russian people under incredible pressure taxes.
Referring to the "information" statements of the Chief of redemption and institutions of the Proceedings of the Commission Zemsky estimates and layouts, Lavrov wrote: "Peasants on the poll tax
of about 18 ½ million Average number of this file is 2 p. 50 kopeks per capita. To join this tribute
and redemption payments obrok. The Ransom transferred 4185000 souls who owes 26626000 p.
redemption payments, amounting to 6 p. 35 kopecks. with soul. "Lavrov did not know about the
value of dues on "soul in areas where peasants were not transferred to ransom", but thought "that
generally quitrents redemption payments above 20%. Average figure of redemption payments on
inland provinces up to 1 p. 89 k per acre. "In Novgorod province average ransom payment is 1 p. 26
k per acre, in the Pskov - 1 p. 32 k, in Smolensk - 1 p. 61 k, p -1 in Tver. 72 building in Ryazan - 2
p. 34 k, in the Tula - 2 p. 47 K. In addition, the quality of the land, he believed, did not match the
price of redemption payments as granting land to the peasants was due not her best sites that affect-
ed the profitability and solvency of farms. He wrote: "... even in the Kherson province, personnel
chief research her income from peasant land, which comprises 3 allotment, is 133 p. 80 k, and fuel
and clothing to feed the 141 p. 30 K. It is clear that income from holdings in Kherson Province. insufficient to meet the primary needs. For this land accounts for 21 p. 60 k redemption payments, in
addition to all other obligations. Funds for this are produced on the side. "[10, p. 41].
Populists propagandists interested exact figures in the annual contribution of farmers to collect taxes. Lavrov called, citing an official source, the total amount of taxes collected by individual
provinces. According to the "Pointer government regulations by the Ministry of Finance» № 18, the
government, he writes, "vymuchit Samarans 206,797 for 1873 p. redemption payments and
2,477,218 p. obrok and capitation, total 2,683,015 p., ie at 306,650 p. more than Samartsev issued
and irrevocable grants and government loans together "[11, p. 29]. State budget levied "almost exclusively with tax-paying, poor unprivileged classes" in 1873 "... officially reached 495 million."
Lavrov said that the amount of fees received from specific peasants from mills and factories and
other institutions ranked as His Majesty's Own Chancellery, unknown to the "uninitiated" in the
budget in 1873 is "exclusively for public needs and is 25 or 30 million "[7. 58].
Lavrov said wastage of facts and theft of public funds in the ministries and departments, figuratively submitting the appointment of taxes and duties collected from the people. Russian government, he wrote, "need extensive funds for personal gratification-tion of the imperial family, to
pay for the numerous court la keystva, military torturers, administrative agents of his orders; the only source of its funds - the people - and it is ruining this nation ... with the help of the self-Mykh
power tools that are supported by means of the people "[9, p. 85]. At the same time, states, has repeatedly said Lavrov, little or nothing has provided the peasantry from the budget. In the article
"Diagnosis and medical prescriptions public" is the opinion of the author editorials "Voices» (№ №
280, 281, 284 for 1875), which agreed to "Citizen" book. VP Meshcherov-ing that "on insufficient
classes" of the population is 76% of all taxes collected in the country, and that for these payments,
which are taken from the peasant "necessary for maintaining the family", he did not receive any
"health care" nor tolerable "Railways" or "schools", the word - nothing ... but ... the government has
from the tavern, the income from which constitutes a "significant part of the state budget" ... and intolerable "in datey system" [12, p. 643].
Naturally, as a revolutionary populist, Lavrov was critical of the fiscal policy of the government. Agreeing with public opinion about the disparity of taxes and duties to the income from the
land, he stressed that the government did not take measures to alleviate the tax-paying policy for
farmers. Even when it is already in the spring of 1873 was known about the imminence of famine in
Samaria, until October 26, it is hid from society and "going with the starving population of arrears
in August ... October ... when the whole of Russia collected alms for the starving" - Lavrov wrote.
And only at the end of December 1873 in terms of increasing hunger government decided message
"Government Bulletin" on December 24, 1873 to delay "collection of dues and arrears" only in Samar province-tion [10, p. 47].
Not eased the situation of farmers, according to Lavrov, and appointed by the government in
May 1872 under the chairmanship of PA Valuev Commission "to review the taxes and levies" and to
"investigate the current situation of agriculture and rural productivity in Russia." Composition Agricultural Commission presented 10 senior officials from 4 ministries, they celebrated too much respect,
and information sent to her "about agriculture in several provinces" Russian assessed as quite reliable.
They included "statements and testimony from 958 different sources," including - from 94 township
boards and elders, 83 chairmen and members of zemstvo, 27 provincial presences on Peasant Affairs
and conciliators, 51 managing private estates, 25 tenants of estates, 43 agricultural societies, 47 peasant householders [11, p. 52-53]. Having studied the huge "Report ..." and impressive Annex, consisting of interviews and reviews of the committee members and invitees, Lavrov highlighted the issues
discussed, the debates and conclusions of the land, taxes and duties. Report "is interesting in itself, but
especially interesting applications for it" - Lavrov wrote [11, p. 54].
Lavrov commissions materials used not only to determine the issue of plans tezhah peasants,
but also to strengthen the propaganda nature views «Vpered!» On the position of the peasantry.
"Representatives of large land-ownership could not hide the fact that the disaster people depended
most of its stake ... from taxes imposed by the government on the people and the superior strength
of his payment ..." - he argued [11, p. 51]. Acute problems in agriculture, "the severity of the emergency tax for farmers to increase the gravity by way of collection, and that the peasants do not go
out of debt" of the commission-vorili economist and close to the Slavophiles Zemstvo book. AI Basilchikov, chief of the gendarmerie c. PA Shuvalov, ideologist Slavophiles IS Aksakov, member of
the liberation movement of the 1860s. VO Luginin known public figure and c. VP Orlov-Davydov.
"So Shuvalov - quoted Lavrov chief of police - Russia suffering economic attributes of our
system of taxation, with all its consequences shy ... I believe - he said - that is currently before the
taxed question all other nuclear explosion-negligible ... lyayutsya taxes exceed the profitability of
land so it is impossible even to acknowledge them landed, but only disguised personal taxes ... The
figure of per capita payments put all across Russia can take 12-14 p. Resolution ... taxpaying issue
in the sense of complete emancipation of the working labor "he thought," measure "," raise the level
of agriculture "[11, p. 55-56].
Were not unanimous in their assessment of taxes and duties of the peasants, said Lavrov, and
some other respondents Commission on Agriculture authoritative person. PA Kotchoubey, chairman of Russian Technical Society, "a former professor of chemistry at the 50-ies.", "All of our scientists only person" who dared to point out the taxes, as "one" of the dreaded sources of "exhaustion
of the people", although "surface ... in looking at the situation of the Russian peasantry. "We, he believed, "... taxes on the peasants in general are too large, if we take into account that while farmers
are buying their allotments" [11, p. 65]. Lavrov were close and similar views of the President of the
Free Economic Society of the Adjutant General of His Serene Highness Prince. AA Suvorov, who
spoke before the commission for the revision of taxation and tax policy [11, p. 67].
Of course, hardly better Lavrov specialists knew the real financial situation of the peasantry.
For him, as for populist Democrat, he was always right, who opened with a felt-"suffering" of the
people, real or imaginary. Unlike the members of the commission, he insisted on tax reform, as he
was sure that the payments did not meet the capabilities of farms and after the abolition of serfdom
was udoro-tent rental, increased intensity of labor and decreased earnings on the side. A ransom allotment, Zemsky taxes and other duties necessarily burdened farms. In this he was convinced materials locations, letters from the Motherland, the legal press, the data of various commissions. "Tax
reform - quoted Lavrov" Moscow News "- and revision of laws on arrears becomes obviously need
be put off. List of places where taxes are almost beyond the power is constantly increasing. To
Kholmsk county Pskov Province., To Mglin and Surazh Chernigov, some counties now added Samara "[10, p. 40]. The government wrote Lavrov, was not considered a high opinion of the officials
and the public about the difficult material situation of the peasants and did not take measures to alleviate its tax burden. For the peasant, "crushed by taxes," reduction from the beginning in 1875,
"each shower put on a few cents" while at a discount for the ruling classes, when "it was" "reduced
and landed obschesoslovnaya file" was "entirely fictitious relief ..." [13, p. 7-8].
Lavrov drew attention to the increase in the fiscal functions of the state in Russian
poreformennoj society. He noted that the government increased the annual budget and its spending,
accumulating public debt, increased the economic oppression to feed the ITATION-class. Suffered
from primarily the peasantry and the emerging proletariat. In "State element in the future society"
Lavrov argued that "every state involved in the development process of the bourgeois social order,
inevitably becomes a matter of public exploiter" [14, p. 37]. A striking example of this Lavrov considered "the accumulation of public debt in the form of securities" and "reflection of these commercial-ing obligations on state taxes and the whole system of the state economy" [13, p. 1]. Lavrov
cited negative dynamics of public debt by 1875 and recalled that modern society faces in this area
by the natural "guardians of public order and security." In Russia, he said, the national debt was visible from the end of the XVIII century., When in 1768 Assignation Bank was founded after the release of banknotes and 100 million rubles. Rates bills became "fall rapidly." During the revolutionary and Napoleonic wars foreign and domestic debt amounted to Russia for about 150 million rubles. and rose sharply in the 70s. By January 1872, he surpassed 1.840 million rubles. silver, and by
January 1, 1875 reached almost 2,340 million, ie "3 years increased by more than 27%." With this
was associated inevitable increase taxes "on the Russian people" [13, p. 2, 4]. According to the state
of painting on 1876, published in the Government Gazette "St. Petersburg Vedomosti" (1875, №
343), direct and indirect taxes amount to "more than 431 million rubles. silver, which means their
growth for the people compared to 1869 by more than 35%, and since 1873 more than 10%. "Bitter
consequence of these taxes for the Russian people Lavrov sees scary figures "arrears", constituting
under three headings: capitation, quit-rent and redemption payments to January 1, 1875 33,689,000 rubles., And capitation arrears is "about one fifth of all annual salary, pay tribute - more
than a quarter, and in redemption payments - 3/8 annual salary. "With reference to the Trust moderately liberal newspaper Lavrov gives an example of the Mogilev, Novgorod, Samara and Smolensk
provinces where "According to the tax arrears and fees and redemption payments on annual salary
almost reach or even surpass them" [13, p. 7].
Lavrov forecasts on future tax policy and the position of the peasants disappointing. Growing
state apparatus, the army increased, subsidy diruyutsya industrialists activated Russian foreign policy face new expenditures, therefore, the growth of public debt and the government's desire to cover
it with new taxes on the productive classes of the country. For "empire - Lavrov wrote - we have
before us a very fast growing and growing debt, which accounted in 1875 for each resident, / counting the population of 88 million people. / 26 p. 60 k, the same interest and redemption - 1 p. 21
floors. cop. The consequence of this growing debt are all growing ... taxes ... hopeless arrears that ...
the government does not dare put down, and the people are unable to pay "[13, p. 8, 14]. In the reliability of these data, it is not doubt, sought once again to point out the anti-popular policy of financial powers and self-declare the continuing deterioration of the material conditions of the peasantry.
Approximately the same positions held numerous correspondents "impres-ed." In his article
"The fruits of reform", written on the basis of economic figures and calculations era of Alexander
II, NG Kulyabko-Koretsky said payments peasants, and their total amount in the state budget of the
country in different years. "Indirect taxes - he wrote, - borne by the poor masses of commodities,
increasing the value of these items in the 5, 10 or even 30 times. The severity and extent of taxes elevation value of a product increases as needed with urgency consumption satisfies the product "[6,
p. 15]. Unlike Lavrov Kulyabko-Koretsky, arguing about the artificiality of capitalism, marked
weakness of the Russian bourgeoisie and did not see the impact of new economic relations on the
fiscal policy of the state. He believed that "capitalism is not grafted onto our soil as fast as it sought
guidance classes" [5, p. 602]. In his view, "factory industry developed slowly and nebezboleznenno
and agriculture not only moved forward, and as if even came back" [6, p. 92]. Kulyabko-Koretsky
critical of the fiscal and budgetary policy of the government and place it in the peasant tax. "System, - he wrote - which is based on the collection of state incomes in Russia, the most irrational,
backward - it's true ... None" civilized "country we do not see anything like this. The whole burden
of public service obligations rests almost entirely on the poorest classes of the population and that in
the form of delaying the development of industry ... "[6, p. 14-15]. He argued that the peasantry
overlaid excessively compared with other groups, to make to the budget and a significant proportion
of its tried, "examining the budget of the Russian state," "only to point out that the end result will be
any tax - direct exploitation of the working population of the state forces "[6. 18]. It was concluded,
it is natural for populist-intellectual.
NK Sudzilovsky did not specify how difficult and how unevenly partitioned between taxes
sufficient classes and the people. Unfamiliar with the question he had sent to the dis-"Herald of Europe" in March 1874, to the works of Russian publicist and public figure IA Aksakova and opinion
LB Turgenev, published in "Proceedings of the Commission on Agricultural Research." In them,
believed Sudzilovsky, the reader can learn that "heavy taxes that with all their weight, they are
borne by the peasants that completely progressive tax is not straight, and the reverse. This - the general rules for the whole of Russia, the rules without exception "[18, p. 174].
PN Tkachev, referring to fiscal policy, pointed to the fatal consequences for the peasantry of
the existing tax system and its role in the growth of the revolutionary ferment among the people.
Russian government "imagines - he wrote - that the peasant inexhaustible purse - and every year
more and more deeply into it launches its rapacious hand - but every year ... production is becoming
less and less - arrears grow. [19. 97]. Being an extreme radical, he called populists use the plight of
the people in promoting revolutionary views of the peasantry.
VN Cherkezov wrote about the size and importance of taxes for farmers and the economy.
The overall picture of the implementation of commitments peasants represent the author reviews so
far from being rosy, because the state was not considered a condition of their farms and insist on
gross pay in terms of taxes in full. It was hard to find a farmer believed Cherkezov timely pay taxes,
taxes and redemption and who had them long-gov [21, p. 643]. However, the magazine noted the
importance of disposable Government-governmental aid in the revival of farms, torn down by famine, and by the example of her Cherkezov assist farmers Volga enthusiastic about her performance:
"The government awaited only a year to the collection of taxes, and the district council" with sin in
half llamas "peasants in debt issued seeds. Because of this, farmers have coped with hozyaystgovernmental difficulties. If one bespodatny year, and even after our cross-hunger Yanin reaches
such huge and brilliant results, what will happen when it's time to welcome the triumph of free labor in the free community? "[20, p. 546]. In these words he found another reason to declare the
populist ideal liberated peasant labor.
Populists reacted positively to the various forms of government assistance to the peasants, but
the way out is still seen in the reduction of taxes, deferred payment and the transfer of all land to the
peasants. «Vpered!» Admitted taxes and duties unreasonably high, do not yield relevant and opportunities farms, and methods for their collection - tough, even cruel.
NF Danielson (1844 - 1918), Russian economist, contemporary Lavrov, based on statistical
data of the early 70-ies., Presented as the ratio of tax to total income landowners and peasants: "For
landlords from 1 ½ to 20%; for farmers / public / - 60 to 160%; peasants / former landlord / - 70 to
562% "[16, p. 309]. Also thought about and populist economist, sociologist and publicist VP
Vorontsov / 1847 - 1918 /. "Payments lying on the peasants, he declared - their holdings exceed income by 50 - 300%" [2, p. 114].
Coincidence conclusions Lavrov Vorontsov and Danielson shows the popularity in that era
populist views, in which the workers and peasants always pictured in the darkest colors and shows
peasant discontent reform in 1861. Study of fiscal policy and budget tsarist allowed populists go
deeper into the post-reform situation of the peasantry. They saw that not only put on and work, but
also the tax policy determined by the economic situation of farmers. However, as argued magazine
taxable policy in the interests of the tsarist, rather than the interests and capabilities of the peasant
1. Barkalov V.Y. Philosophical-sociological views PL Lavrov. Sverdlovsk, 1974.
2. Vorontsov V.P. Sketches of the peasant economy. St. Petersburg., 1911.
3. Kirichenko T.M. From the history of Russian revolutionary populist press. M., 1971.
4. Winds Bookman-IS, AF Okulov Veteran revolutionary theory / PL Lavrov. Philosophy and
sociology. M., 1965. T. I.
5. Kulyabko Koretsky-N.G. From Eagle. Third letter / PL Lavrov / / Go! 1876. № 42.
6. Kulyabko Koretsky-N.G. The fruits of reform / PL Lavrov / / Go! 1877. T. V.
7. Lavrov P.L. Martyrdom of Russian folk / / Go! 1873. T. I, Div. 2.
8. Lavrov P.L. Our administrators and our self / / Go! 1873. T. I, Div. 2.
9. Lavrov P.L. Conclusion / / Go! 1873. T. I, Div. 2.
10. Lavrov P.L. I. Hunger! Hunger! Hunger! / / Go! 1874. T. II, Div. 2.
11. Lavrov P.L. I. More about hunger / / Go! 1874. T. III, Div. 2.
12. Lavrov P.L. Diagnosis and medical prescriptions public / / Go! 1875. № 21.
13. Lavrov P.L. World bankruptcy / / Go! 1876. № 25.
14. Lavrov P.L. State element in the future society / / Go! 1876. T. IV.
15. Levin S.M. Public Movement 70s and the second democratic upsurge / / History of the
USSR. M., 1968. T. V.
16. Marx, Engels and Revolutionary Russia: a collection. M., 1967.
17. Essays on the history of philosophical and political thought of the USSR. M., 1956.
18. Sudzilovsky NK My report to students of the University of XX-/ / application. PL Lavrov / /
Go! 1875. № 6.
19. Tkachev P.N. Of Great Bow / PL Lavrov / / Go! 1874. T. II, Div. 2.
20. Cherkezov V.N. For two weeks. IX / PL Lavrov / / Go! 1876. № 40.
21. Cherkezov V.N. For two weeks. XII / PL Lavrov / / Go! 1876. № 43.
22. Chesnokov G.D. The most outstanding Marxist XX century. Social and humanities, 2009.
Баркалов В.Я. Философско-социологические взгляды П.Л. Лаврова. Свердловск, 1974.
Воронцов В.П. Очерки крестьянского хозяйства. СПб., 1911.
Кириченко Т.М. Из истории русской революционной народнической печати. М., 1971.
Книжник-Ветров И.С., Окулов А.Ф. Ветеран революционной теории / П.Л. Лавров.
Философия и социология. М., 1965. Т. I.
Кулябко-Корецкий Н.Г. Из Орла. Письмо третье / П.Л. Лавров // Вперед! 1876. № 42.
Кулябко-Корецкий Н.Г. Плоды реформ / П.Л. Лавров // Вперед! 1877. Т. V.
Лавров П.Л. Мученичество русского народа // Вперед! 1873. Т. I, отд. 2.
Лавров П.Л. Наши администраторы и наше самоуправление // Вперед! 1873. Т. I, отд.
Лавров П.Л. Заключение // Вперед! 1873. Т. I, отд. 2.
Лавров П.Л. I. Голод! Голод! Голод! // Вперед! 1874. Т. II, отд. 2.
Лавров П.Л. I. Еще о голоде //Вперед! 1874. Т. III, отд. 2.
Лавров П.Л. Диагноз и рецепты общественных медиков // Вперед! 1875. № 21.
Лавров П.Л. Всемирное банкротство // Вперед! 1876. № 25.
Лавров П.Л. Государственный элемент в будущем обществе // Вперед! 1876. Т. IV.
Левин Ш.М. Общественное движение 70-х годов и второй демократический подъем //
История СССР. М., 1968. Т. V.
К. Маркс, Ф. Энгельс и революционная Россия: сборник. М., 1967.
Очерки по истории философской и общественно-политической мысли народов СССР.
М., 1956.
Судзиловский Н.К. Мой отчет студентам XX-ского университета // Приложение. П.Л.
Лавров // Вперед! 1875. № 6.
Ткачев П.Н. Из Великих Лук / П.Л. Лавров // Вперед! 1874. Т. II, отд. 2.
Черкезов В.Н. За две недели. IX / П.Л. Лавров // Вперед! 1876. № 40.
Черкезов В.Н. За две недели. XII / П.Л. Лавров // Вперед! 1876. № 43.
Чесноков Г.Д. Самый выдающийся марксист XX столетия. Социально-гуманитарные
знания, 2009.
June, 19, 2014
Размер файла
183 Кб
Пожаловаться на содержимое документа