The article presents a comparative analysis of research approaches to understanding the events of the Peasant War of 1524–1525 in the German lands by W. Bloch and K. Kautsky. The works published in the scientific and educational journal "Die Neue Zeit" were written by the authors during the period of the Exceptional Law Against Socialists (from October 22, 1878, to September 30, 1890). The scholarly-journalistic narrative style of W. Bloch showed stylistic and content similarities with the tradition of W. Zimmermann, while K. Kautsky's theoretical discourse was based on the methodology of historical materialism by F. Engels. There was rivalry between the authors, two prominent social democrats, for the position of editor-in-chief of "Die Neue Zeit," primarily explained by significant differences in their ideological views. These disagreements in understanding socialism found reflection in the historical narrative of the Peasant War. The use of the historical-comparative method in this research is due to the necessity to substantiate the conceptual differences in the interpretation of the Peasant War in the German lands of 1524–1525 by representatives of two distinct ideological currents within German social democracy. The authors were interested in different aspects of the historical event, and thus their research objectives also differed. W. Bloch aimed to awaken a sense of class solidarity among the proletarian milieu, using the heroic image of Florian Geyer as a value-oriented reference. In his analysis, he primarily adhered to general democratic positions. In contrast, K. Kautsky relied on the methodological foundation of historical materialism, interpreting the events of the Peasant War strictly in terms of class struggle and socio-economic formations. The scientific novelty of the study lies in the systemic analysis and introduction of the little-studied works of K. Kautsky and W. Bloch into the domestic scientific discourse, dedicated to the history of the Peasant War of the 16th century. Despite their scientific significance, they have been rarely translated into Russian and have not become the subject of comprehensive study.
Голубев Даниил Павлович (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: