PROBLEM OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF SIBERIA IN RUSSIAN HISTORIOGRAPHY

The article is devoted to the analysis of the debates in Russian historical science at the end of the 19th – first third of the 20th centuries when the problem of the development of Siberia was raised. Based on the method proposed by M.V. Nechkina and D.Y. Rezun, the author identified an array of historiographic sources, studied their content, outlined the main stages of the discussion, the approaches of researchers, and came to the following results. At the first stage, the participants in the discussions were researchers who adhered to different political views and concepts in historical science, linking the process of the development of Siberia with the development of capitalist relations. Explaining the advance of the Russian state to the east by necessity, they saw the reasons for the decline in the people's standard of living in the development of capitalist relations. The question of the nature of these relations, which caused heated debate, remained with the scientists who held social democratic positions. Whereas, following the theory of M.N. Pokrovsky, the development of Siberia took place through interaction with external markets. The conclusions of the scientific work indicate that during the discussions held throughout the period under review, their theoretical framework gradually narrowed given the political conjuncture associated with the establishment of the Marxist-Leninist paradigm in historical science, which had a noticeable impact on the topics of further research on the problem raised.


Introduction
In a strictly scientific sense, the study of the problem of the development of Siberia, the creation of a certain economic order on the Siberian lands, is associated with the genesis of capitalist relations and the development of the internal market -fundamental issues that attracted the attention of Russian historians at the end of the 19th century and have not lost their relevance to this day. Raised by the power of the steam engines of the industrial revolution, aggravated by the deepening social stratification, the deterioration of the people's well-being, and the growth of protest sentiments, the issues of the economic life of the country and its regions appeared in the scientific world on the wave of the rise of the social movement, moved to the pages of scientific works from the rebellious streets and squares, becoming an object heated discussions of domestic thinkers belonging to different currents of historical science. The problem of the development of Siberia did not stand aside either. Putting aside disputes about the role of the Stroganovs and Ermak in the Siberian conquest, about the relationship between the government and free people principles of Russian colonization, historians turned to an explanation of the reasons for the widespread decline of the people's welfare beyond the Urals (Golovachev, 1902). The irinterpretations of the indicated problem requires historiographic comprehension.

Problem Statement
We assume that the problems of Soviet historiography of the development of Siberia were based on the foundations that were laid in historical science in the pre-revolutionary era, were born in the depths of its worldview. Perhaps that is why it turned out to be bypassed, subsequently, by the attention of Russian researchers, who dogmatically perceived the opinion rooted in the scientific community about the crisis of Russian historical science in the late 19th -early 20th centuries. Probably, such an assessment represents an incorrect interpretation of the well-known position of Lenin that Bolshevism has existed as a current of political thought and, as a political party, since 1903" (Lenin, 1981). Since science, as noted in the Soviet historiography of the 1960s, is party in nature (Nechkina, 1965), subordinated to the requirements of the party ideological system, Lenin's thesis was categorically extended to the entire history of the development of historical knowledge from the early 1930s and implying the elimination of any scientific alternative to the Marxist-Leninist teaching (Repina, 2004), as well as the suppression of scientific searches in it. Following this approach has actualized two problems in the history of Russian historical science in general and Siberian studies. First, this became the reason for the opposition of both pre-revolutionary and Soviet, and Marxist and anti-Marxist historiography. And this opposition, in turn, contradicted the words of Lenin that historical merits are judged not because what historical figures did not give in comparison with modern requirements, but because they gave something new in comparison with their predecessors (Lenin, 1967). Secondly, the previously indicated approach raised in historiography the question of the correspondence of a scientific theory to the facts of the historical process that it is designed to explain. We recognize that public consciousness, although it is conditioned by real historical processes, develops in many respects independently, under the influence of its specific laws. This is especially evident in the study of the history of the development of Siberia. Publication of Ananyeva et al. (2006), Repina (2004), Rezun (1982), Savelyeva and Poletaev (2007), Zuev (2007),

Research Questions
The relevance of the study of socio-economic processes in Russia was substantiated as early as 1880 -the 1890s. in domestic historical, economic, and -geographical works, the authors of which, from the standpoint of different methodological concepts, tried to comprehend the nature of the changes taking place in the country and determine their patterns. So, Milyukov and Lyubavsky, relying on the theory of colonization, tried to understand the peculiarities of the socio-economic development of Russia. They saw an obstacle to the establishment of its civil and economic well-being in the discrepancy between the number of the Russian people and the size of the territories they occupied in Eastern Europe and North Asia (Lyubavsky, 1909). The outstripping demographic growth of the territorial expansion of the Russian state, especially in the eastern direction, had quite definite reasons. The main ones were seen in the predatory exploitation of the country's natural resources and in the government's actions to ensure the defense and security of the Russian borders in the 16th -18th centuries. (Lyubavsky, 1909;Milyukov, 1896). The construction of more and more frontier fortresses, the transfer and attachment of service people and peasants to them (Lyubavsky, 1909) turned out to be an extraordinary scattering of the population (Lyubavsky, 1909) and, in the end, led to the indicated inconsistency. This discrepancy, according to researchers, contributed to the preservation of the subsistence economy, poor development of communication routes, a low level of urbanization and social division of labor, caused the isolation of local markets, the slow formation of the merchant stratum, the weakness of domestic commodity circulation and the passivity of foreign trade (Milyukov, 1896). According to scientists, in a country without capital, without workers, without entrepreneurs, and without buyers, the organic development of the economy was impossible. In such conditions, it was the monarchist absolutist power, which was a derivative of the same inconsistency, that took upon itself the responsibility of creating large-scale industrial production and developing trade, including in Siberia. Providing increased patronage to entrepreneurship, the authorities provided monopolies, free labor in the person of exiles and serfs (Lyubavsky, 1909), set high import duties, and ensured a guaranteed sale of manufactured products. The increased attention of the state to industry and trade, government intervention in solving market problems led Russian researchers to the conclusion that the capitalist development of Russia was artificial (Milyukov, 1896). Historians -the populists were also convinced that there was no ground for the development of capitalism in Russia. They believed that capitalism in Russia was imposed by force from above -by the state and developed at the expense of the treasury (Vorontsov, 1882). Ultimately, this violent planting led to the impoverishment of the people, to a reduction in the number of workers due to the technical improvement of production equipment, to the deprivation of a part of the population of earnings. In order to get a livelihood, Vorontsov (1882) noted, the people plowed everything that could be developed in the central black-earth provinces. The government, not understanding the reasons for such colonization, and fearing that the flow of the people to free lands would take there the hands necessary for capitalist agriculture (Vorontsov, 1882), as much as they could, held back this movement. Seeing that it was not possible to restrain the people, the state took measures to form a capitalist economy in the new https: //doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2021.11.169 Corresponding Author: Popov Roman Igorevich Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the conference eISSN:  territories. As a result, popular consumption, which creates a market for large-scale production, declined there, and production itself fell with it. Explaining all the evil of Russian life, the ruin and exploitation of the working people, by the actions of state officials who sought to rebuild the economy in their own selfish interests, the Narodnik concept linked the growth of the people's well-being with the entry of capitalist production into foreign markets. But since this way out was in the hands of the advanced Western European countries, with which it was extremely difficult to fight (Vorontsov, 1882), the populists identified several possible ways of further economic development. First, they offered to remain forever at its lowest craft level. Secondly, to make the transition to the socialization of labor in a different, non-capitalist way. Finally, thirdly, to continue the movement only after, in the countries that have gone ahead, capitalist production has completed the entire cycle of its development, turns into a national one and ceases to strive for expansion (Vorontsov, 1882). Conclusions about the artificial nature of Russian capitalism and its characteristic feature, which supposedly consisted in the fact that it covers only the area of marketing, and not the production of goods, have drew criticism from scientists who held social democratic positions. At first, Isaev (1884), Kablukov (1918), Struve (2015), and then Tugan-Baranovsky and Lenin. It was their scientific views that had a strong influence on the subsequent development of Russian historiography. According to Tugan-Baranovsky, capitalist relations began to take shape in Russia before Petr and, developing, went through two stages -first commercial and then industrial capitalism. In the era of the domination of commercial capital, large-scale industrial production did not exist in Russia. The production was small, his technique was primitive, and the products he produced were crude and cheap. Small producers were completely dependent on large traders, whose role in the socio-economic life of the country was great. It was to the means of commercial capital that the government of Peter I turned, hoping to create several new industries in a short time to meet the urgent state needs. The newly created large enterprises enjoyed direct support from the authorities, which provided landowners for the construction of industrial establishments, assigned workers to these establishments, and guaranteed the sale of the products produced. The growth of its volumes, observed throughout the 18th century, made it possible to satisfy the demand in the domestic market and go beyond it. Merchant and noble manufactories, formed with the participation of the state and under its patronage, were one of the forms of development of large-scale production in Russia. Another form was enterprises that did not enjoy state support and gradually grew out of the depths of the peasant handicraft industry.
Due to the simplicity of technology and techniques, the cheapness of goods and ease of sale, the use of the labor of civilian workers, they developed dynamically, practically not competing with those factories that surpassed them in terms of production and worked largely for the treasury. It was in this industrial environment, devoid of government tutelage, at the end of the 18th century. new industries appear (cotton, leather, rope, etc.). Their enterprises in the conditions of the industrial crisis of the second half of the 1830s. demonstrated certain flexibility, expressed in the rapid introduction of improved machines, and resulting in cheaper production and increased sales. Appearance in the first half of the 19th century a new type of factory meant that Russian industry had reached the level of industrial capitalism. During the industrial revolution, the serf factory was becoming a thing of the past, and in its place was taken by a new capitalist factory based on a free contract between an entrepreneur-capitalist and a hired worker.
Thus, large-scale production, which arose based on peasant crafts, according to Tugan-Baranovsky, was https: //doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2021.11.169 Corresponding Author: Popov Roman Igorevich Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the conference eISSN:  1286 not an artificial phenomenon, but an organic product of people's life that developed in market conditions (Tugan-Baranovsky, 1922). In contrast to the scholars who took the populist positions, Tugan-Baranovsky was convinced that the volume of the market in a capitalist economy is not determined by the level of public consumption. He rightly noted that the social product consists not only of consumer goods but also of the means of production, the increased demand for which is created by developing capitalism.
As one of the founders of market theory, Tugan-Baranovsky (1998) tried to investigate the process of realizing the social product in the capitalist economy. The scientist found that as capitalism develops, industry increasingly needs both external and internal markets. Historically, capitalism developed based on the external market due to the initial production of mainly luxury goods. Since there were few luxury consumers in their home country, entrepreneurs had to look around the world for them. This is the manifestation of the international character of capital, which strives for unlimited expansion of production and the search for buyers of its goods everywhere. To realize the surplus product, the country of developing capitalism increasingly needs to sell its products on the markets of those states in which the economic system is not capitalist. Given that the capitalist system is developing rapidly throughout the world, the market for the surplus product of capitalism should have stopped developing long ago.
Meanwhile, the development of capitalism not only does not stop but for many decades has been going at an accelerating pace (Tugan-Baranovsky, 1998). This is because, along with the external market, the internal market is also growing rapidly. The growth of the domestic market takes place in two ways. In the old capitalist countries, it is expanding due to the proportional distribution of the surplus product in the industry. In young capitalist states, the market is created not by a proportional increase in the volume of products of its other industries, but by the destruction of the natural economy and the decline of small non-capitalist production, that is, the growth of capitalist enterprises was seen as possible due to their displacement of forms of non-capitalist economy. Therefore, in the young countries, the market for the products of capitalist industry expanded with greater ease than in the "old" ones, since it created conditions conducive to the inflow of capital from the old countries to the young (Tugan- Baranovsky, 1998). Discussing with Tugan-Baranovsky, Lenin argued that the border between the internal and external markets for capitalism is conditional and does not matter, since capitalism cannot exist without the development and expansion of the sphere of its domination. According to the scientist, the process of forming an internal market for the large industry has two sides: economic and social. Economically, this process is divided into several successive stages: the natural stage, the commodity stage, and the capitalist stage (Lenin, 1971). In the era of the dominance of the natural economy, the manufacturing industry was combined with the extractive industry. The society consisted of a mass of homogeneous economic units (peasant families, peasant communities, monastic estates), within which all types of economic work were carried out from beginning to end to meet local needs. With the beginning of the social division of labor, that is, with the beginning of the separation of one after other branches of the manufacturing industry from the extractive industry and their further fragmentation into smaller types, the formation and development of a commodity economy take place. Each of the emerging industries specializes either in the production of a product or parts of this product. Since agriculture is at the head of the extractive industry, the development of a commodity economy is carried out by separating one branch of the industry from agriculture after another. The first form of industry that separated from agriculture was https: //doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2021.11.169 Corresponding Author: Popov Roman Igorevich Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the conference eISSN:  handicraft, that is, the production of goods to order, which, although it was characterized by narrowness and routine, but developed in conditions of increased competition and the departure of some artisans to work in other areas where there were few artisans, incomes are high, and life is cheap (Lenin, 1971). On the new lands, they founded small establishments and worked not only on order but also for the market, gradually turning into commodity producers. The gradual transition to a new form of industrial production -small-scale cooperation, was due to the initial narrowness of the market and small distances between producers and consumers. With the expansion of the market and the folding of the specialization of the areas of commodity production, a need arose for an increase in commodity circulation, and the representatives of the wealthy minority began to concentrate sales in their hands, turning into buyers. By buying up products or raw materials in large quantities, they reduced the cost of marketing, achieved an increase, made it regular, cut off small producers from the market, and put them in a certain form of dependence on merchant capital. The small producers became wage laborers working at home for the capitalists. The transition to the widespread use of the labor of hired workers marked the transition to the next stage of capitalist development -manufacture, which was an intermediate link between handicrafts and small-scale commodity production and large-scale industry. Such a progressive growth of the social division of labor, accompanied by a change in the forms of production and the transformation of products of individual industries mutually into goods, into equivalents for each other, was fundamental in the process of creating an internal market for capitalism and marked its development in depth. Having reached a high level, the manufactory, which began to move into a factory and seized the market of Central Russia, began to look for new markets, including among the population that colonized Siberia.
The search for new markets, according to Lenin, is associated with the unevenness and originality of capitalism, in which various industries, serving as markets for each other, develop unevenly. A more developed industry outgrows the boundaries of the local market, the regional market, and then the state.
And this is the progressive historical work of capitalism in breadth, which destroys the ancient isolation and isolation of economic systems and connects all countries of the world into a single economic whole (Lenin, 1971). In social terms, the development of a commodity economy means the separation of an increasing part of the rural population from agriculture and, consequently, the growth of the industrial population. This separation is characterized by the isolation of one part of the producers from the means of production that belonged to them earlier and the transfer of these funds into other hands, their transformation into capital. New owners, expanding their production, present the market demand for new tools, raw materials, means of transport, consumer goods, etc. Broken producers, feeling the need for these funds, are forced to resort to selling their labor. In general, Lenin concluded, the numerical growth of employed in various industrial sectors is of great importance, reflecting the dynamics of the development of capitalism and education in the market conditions of two new social subjects: on the one hand, the owners of the means of production, and on the other, hired workers. (Lenin, 1971). Despite the visible differences, the concept of Tugan-Baranovsky, and the concept of Lenin had a certain similarity. represented by large traders, was a necessary intermediary between producers (village artisans) and consumers. Occupying such an important position, representatives of the bourgeoisie could not but be major figures in public and political life (Pokrovsky, 1933). As an important element of Muscovite Rus, they exerted a tremendous influence on both the foreign and domestic policy of the government (Pokrovsky, 2002). For this new class, the tsar's power was only a weapon in achieving certain goals, one of which, it should be assumed, was the conquest of a new large trading market -Siberia. According to Pokrovsky (1933), the beginning of the development of Siberian natural resources provides such a brilliant illustration of the Russian primitive accumulation, the colonial system of the early stage, which one can only wish for. By proclaiming enrichment as the only goal, the colonial system played an important role in the transition to industrial capitalism. Allowing facilitating the process of transformation of the feudal mode of production into a capitalist one, the exploitation of Siberian riches based on gross violence had not only economic but also important socio-political significance. Through the foreign sale of agricultural raw materials and furs from Siberia, Russia joined the international trade system. Contact with Western Europe" strongly stimulated the development of our trading capital. If native accumulation had not preceded this contact, Russia would be a purely colonial country, like not even India ... but central Africa, Pokrovsky (1933) concluded. The originality of Pokrovsky (1933), their difference from Lenin's concept of the formation of an all-Russian market was in denying the development of Russian capitalism according to the scheme "from craft through manufacture to factory. "According to the scientist, such a development was impossible under the conditions of domination in Russia in the 16th-17th centuries. European capital, which piled on then when the Russian craft has not yet separated in its mass from agriculture. Linking the formation of a national market with trade and commercial capital, Pokrovsky promoted the idea of the development of a commodity-money system in the depths of the feudal economy, the emergence of which led to social differentiation of society, to a change in political forms and contributed to the further development of social production, expressed in the separation of the manufacturing industry in the cities. Although the concept of Pokrovsky was not shared by all historians, she drew attention to the problem of the formation of an all-Russian market and had a strong influence on the plots and topics of research. Pokrovsky can be found in the works of the outstanding historian of Siberia Bakhrushin (1922), who studied the process of the annexation of the Siberian lands to the Russian state and their initial economic development. According to the scientist, one of the main goods exported by Russian merchants abroad and determining the economic role of Russia in the system of European trade was Siberian furs. Its extraction was the main goal of the commercial capital in the spontaneous movement to the east. During this advance, the merchants entered a struggle for trade routes with the Siberian Tatars, who sought to spread their influence west of the Urals (Bakhrushin, 1927). The Russian commercial capital consolidated the conquered Siberian lands by building small forts, which were in essence, fortified estates of the patrimonials (Bakhrushin, 1922). On the one hand, these towns were economic centers. In their district, peasants, "strollers", bonded servants, dutiful tenants and Cossacks, called up by traders, were engaged in the extraction and purchase of furs, salt and fish industries, ore exploration, and agriculture. On the other hand, merchant townships were of great strategic importance. Defended by archers and Cossacks, whom the entrepreneurs recruited from  (Bakhrushin, 1940). This is exactly how the state treated the guest Sveteshnikov, who got confused in the calculations with the treasury and died on the right, and this is how the Guryevs and Stroganovs were expropriated at the time when it turned out to be https: //doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2021.11.169 Corresponding Author: Popov Roman Igorevich Selection and peer-review under  Having indicated the urgency of the problem, and having determined the degree of its study, and relying on the array of identified historiographic sources, the researchers directed their efforts to:  an analysis of the content of the theoretical concepts of Russian scientists who studied the problem of the development of Siberia in the little-studied, transitional period of the development of historical science.
 establishment of the main stages of the historical discussion, the line of succession of the presented theories and directions for further scientific research.

Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study was to study the problem of the development of Siberia in Russian historical science at the end of the 19th -first third of the 20th centuries.

Research Methods
Based on the method proposed by Nechkina (1965) developed in the scientific work of Rezun (1982), the researchers: 2. identified the problems of historical sources replacing each other in this chronological series and the line of transmission of the "relay race" of the study; 3. moved from the problematic to the analysis of the concepts of scientists; 4. checking the concepts for compliance with historical realities, we established the volume and content of the sources based on which each of the authors based his research; 5. paying attention to the nature of the argumentation, found out the philosophical approaches of thinkers and their ideological positions.
As a result of constructing a chronological series, we managed to introduce new historiographic sources and names into scientific circulation, present their source and theoretical interdependence, reveal the basic phenomena that influenced the development of science, and formulate the main conclusions.

Findings
At the end of the 19th century, in order to comprehend the nature of the changes taking place in Russia, and hindering the establishment of civil and economic well-being, Russian scientists came up with the problem of the development of the territories of Siberia by the state. This problem was reflected in the discussions, which, within the period under review, we conditionally divided into two stages. The first is from the 1880s until 1921, when the 10th Congress of the RSDLP (B) was held with the resolutions On Party Unity and On Syndicalist and Anarchist Deviation adopted at it, which demanded strengthening the unity of the party ranks and a steady systematic struggle against the propaganda of anarcho-syndicalist ideas. The second -from 1921 to the mid -1930s, marked by the defeat of the anti-Marxist school of Pokrovsky, which distorted, in the opinion of the supreme leadership, the real history, and the transition to an official campaign to revise Soviet ideology. At the first stage, the participants in the discussions were researchers who adhered to different political views and concepts in historical science, linking the process of the development of Siberia with the development of capitalist relations.
Explaining the advance of the Russian state to the east by necessity, they saw the reasons for the decline in the people's standard of living in the development of capitalist relations. The question of the nature of these relations, which caused heated debate, remained with the scientists who held social democratic positions. Speaking about the natural origin of Russian capitalism, they outlined the main ways of its development, linking the development of new territories with the expansion of the domestic market and indicating the directions for further research of the problem. At the second Soviet stage of historiography, the discussion of the problem took place in a confrontation between two concepts, one of which belonged to Lenin, and the other to Pokrovsky. According to Lenin, the development in breadth of market relations was carried out through the deepening of the social division of labor, the growth of commodity production and exchange; whereas, following the theory of Pokrovsky, the development of Siberia took place through interaction with external markets.

Conclusion
Throughout the discussions held throughout the period under review, their theoretical framework gradually narrowed given the political conjuncture associated with the establishment of the Marxist-https: //doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2021.11.169 Corresponding Author: Popov Roman Igorevich Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the conference eISSN:  1292 Leninist paradigm in historical science, which had a noticeable impact on the topics of further research on the problem of the development of Siberia in the Soviet era.