Economic Journalism of the Novoye Vremya of the 1880 S

The article represents the first attempt at a comprehensive analysis of the economic journalism in A.S. Suvorin’s newspaper Novoye Vremya in the 1880s. It was a period when after heated discussions about the role of private and state capital in the economy, the public sentiment and government policy increasingly shifted in favor of the necessity of state ownership in such strategically important areas of the national economy as railways, mining plants and forests. After A.S. Suvorin acquired ownership of the Novoye Vremya in 1876, the newspaper took on a noticeable national-democratic slant, which became increasingly more conspicuous over the years. Despite the editor’s allegiance to the authorities, his contemporaries deservedly saw him as an independent figure. The influence of Suvorin’s newspaper was so significant that the famous parlor general E.V. Bogdanovich tried (not always successfully) to use it to his advantage. Bogdanovich, who initially advocated the “concession” nature of the Siberian Railway, later supported its construction at the expense of the treasury. A.S. Suvorin himself, as well as such regular newspaper contributors as V.K. Petersen and K.A. Skalkovsky were also initially supporters of private capital, concerning it an active creative force. At the same time, Novoye Vremya assessed the German experience of “state socialism” quite positively, but pointed out its inapplicability to Russian conditions and the lack of a suffcient number of active and incorruptible officials in the country. In 1883 K.A. Skalkovsky engaged in polemics with M.N. Katkov, criticizing his project to create state-owned grain elevators. However, from the mid-1880s the editors of Novoye Vremya were forced to support “statist” tendencies in the economic life of the country. In general, the economic policy of that time was not as dogmatic as in the subsequent socialist era. Subject to political interests, it was rather instrumental, practical and situational in its orientation, and the ambiguity of the position of the publicists of Suvorin’s periodical largely resulted from the latter circumstance.