The Slavophiles and the Pochvenniki considered the society to be the main agent of nation-building - the reason why we refer to them as Conservative Democrats. Their ideologies were based on anti-aristocratic stance, a strive towards forming the national identity on the foundation of a peculiarly understood Orthodox spirituality. The main targets of criticism by Slavophile advocates were 'aristocratic opposition' and `revolutionary conservatism': the forms of conservative politics and ideology that provoked revolutionary upheavals and were thus their root cause. Left radicalism was considered by the Slavophiles as a variety of `tyranny of theory over life'. Not recognizing in it any positive content, the Slavophiles considered it a symptom of a disease afflicting the national organism. The unfinished cycle by K.K. Tolstoy printed in Aksakov's Rus' ushered in a number of publications on the issues of Nihilism by N.N. Gilyarov-Platonov and N.Ya. Danilevsky. Gilyarov-Platonov's considerations were further developed by his nephew, F.A. Gilyarov. However, his book "The Fifteen Years of Sedition" contained harsh attacks on the authorities and "Katkov's school". The numerous works of N.N. Strakhov were the most serious philosophical study of Nihilism. In the course of time, the revolutionary ideology changed. 'Pure' Nihilism was receding into the past in the 1870s; the Narodniki and the Marxists considered themselves to be the promoters of a positive agenda. But Conservatives did not recognize this positive element - and, arguing with the Marxists, continued to use the polemic repertoire of the old anti-nihilist discourse. At the same time, there was no single approach to Marxism in Conservative circles. Thus, for Ilovaisky it was a phenomenon alien to Russia. For Sharapov, on the contrary, it was a product of Russian life.