moral and ethical, religious, etc.). However, they noted that, depending on the goals and objectives of the analysis of political parties is one of many criteria could speak to the fore, while the other plays a supporting role [7, p.8-9]. Then as in the textbook were identified: a) All-Russia party and the national b) the monarchy, the bourgeois and petty-bourgeois and separately Bolsheviks [7, p.11].
Encyclopedic edition on the history of political parties in pre-revolutionary Russia (1996) assumed that the fundamental differences between the parties and movements clearly traced to the doctrinal level, and therefore proposed to allocate three software-political bloc (directions): conservative, liberal and socialist parties [8, p.5-6]. Immediately it should be noted that instead of the category of "socialist" was more appropriate to use the term "Radical". p> Modernize Russia's textbook on the history of political parties (2000) concludes that "the current state of knowledge allows us to propose the following classification: conservative, liberal, centrist and socialist parties and movements "[9, p.9]. The term "centrist" is not commented and not explained, so do not understand exactly what the party should be assigned to this unit.
I think that, firstly, fundamentally unacceptable to classify political parties on the basis of diverse criteria and need to come to the greatest possible recognition of the leading (basic) criteria of historical typology of parties. Second, the structuring of the national parties (Belarusian, Polish, Jewish, etc.) do not always fit into the overall classification of political parties.
In our view, the basic criterion for classification can be software-ideological orientation of political parties, suggesting their division at the reactionary, conservative, reformist (liberal) and radical (revolutionary). And within each block must take into account the degree of political radicalism of certain parties in relation to related political structures. We believe that this theoretical and methodological approach can be used both for the parties of the past, and for the systematization of modern parties.
At the same time does not exclude the possibility of using both categories of "right - left - the centrist "party. In this case, however, should pay attention to the fact that: a) the typology (in the tradition of the French Revolution) greatly simplifies the problem, because in such a scheme is difficult to squeeze the religious, ethnic-national and other interests, and b) historically adjustably very content of the concepts "right" and "Left", c) is extremely difficult to more or less clearly defined what constitutes a party-political center.
Underlining the complexity of the classification of national parties in a public education, we can assume that when they are organizing, in addition to the base (Software-ideological) principle should be considered: a) the extent of radicalism in relation to public and political center (Imperial, Federal ...) b) the presence (absence), confessional component, etc.
With Russian historians and political scientists linked classification of political parties with the state of public consciousness. They use the categorical chain "Value - philosophy - ideology - the doctrine. In this world view is characterized as a general picture of the world, and a hierarchy of preferences based on varying values, ideology - as a description of the desired state of society and the main directions of movement to it, the doctrine - as the action and tactics to achieve the goals set by ideology.
Every effort shall be emphasized that in their understanding of the "Party - consciously organized and socially active representative of a particular type of mass consciousness "[6, p.17]. In an attempt to give an absolute historical typology of political parties (especially modern Russia) St. Petersburg, scientists are taking as a basis for ideological values ​​(national, liberal, socialist) and allocate the appropriate group of parties [6, sch.19-23]. We believe that such an approach, on the one hand, quite convincingly reasoned arguments, but on the other hand, needs to historical specificity, and further theoretical analysis
References
1. Piulsky, EV Politics: the texts of lectures: In 2 hours/EV Piulsky. - Grodno: ГрГУ, 1993. - P.2. - 58 pp. p> 2. The history of social movements and political parties: the curriculum/comp. AN Nechuhrin. - Grodno: Grodn.filial HIS, 1999. - 24. p> 3. Russia historical political science: a course of lectures/Editorial Board.: SA Kislitsyn (otv.red.) [And others]. - Rostov on Don: Feniks, 1998. - 608 pp. p> 4. Politics in Russia against the background: a training manual/Editorial Board.: PI Simush (otv.red.) [And others]. - Moscow: Luch, 1993. - 426 pp. p> 5. Hajiyev, KS Introduction to political science: a t...
