The evolution of the Russian state in the context of formational views on the structure of the world history

Abstract

The approach to history in general and the history of Russia in particular, which points to the presence of the necessary historical stages, is primarily associated with various trends in Marxism. In the case of the last centuries of Russian history, the most important point is the question of the nature of the 1917 Revolution. More generally, it is a question of the extent to which Marxist theory is able to substantiate the possibility of a “jump” through historical steps. We have chosen two Marxists from different periods as an example the attitude to the topic. The first example is G. V. Plekhanov, an outstanding Russian theorist and polemist. His reaction to the revolutionary events was twofold. The February Revolution of 1917 fully met his aspirations both in the medium term (the overthrow of “tsarism” and the continuation of the struggle against Germany) and in the long term (creation in Russia of prerequisites for economic development, and, therefore, a socialist revolution). On the contrary, the October Revolution was regarded by him as a tragic mistake. Another position on the October Revolution was expressed by a modern proponent of the formational approach, the Japanese philosopher Kajio Karatani. He significantly changed the understanding of how the social development of mankind takes place. The most important reason for historical change is the relationship of the three modes of economic exchange, which dictate those types of state system that are relevant in different historical eras. Karatani believes that the Russian Revolution was the reaction of an imperial-type state to pressure from national states. The idea of class reorganization, on which the teachings of the Bolsheviks were based, allowed the imperial, supranational structure of Russia to survive. After the Civil War it received the supranational name of the Soviet Union.