Andrei Fursov: The Origins of February
"TOMORROW". The events of February 1917, have different interpretations in modern times. Despite the fact that 100 years have passed, we have not united in the general understanding of those events. Until now, there are a lot of secrets connected with them and a lot of different interpretations ...
Andrei Fursov. In principle, all February estimates can be grouped into two “pole” groups. The first position: in the second half of the nineteenth century, everything was fine in Russia, the country was confidently moving along the bourgeois path, and February culminated in the triumph of democracy and liberalism. And then the Bolsheviks came and spoiled everything. The second position is that the entire second half of the nineteenth century, Russia socially degraded and therefore went to a social revolution. February in this context became a kind of zigzag, it was breaking out of the path to a social revolution, since it did not offer anything to the majority of the population. The Russian society of the second half of the nineteenth century, along with its incompetent authorities, was sick, rejecting therapeutic treatment, and therefore doomed to surgery.
In the Russian literary and intellectual tradition there are two people who can be referred to in favor of this second point of view. The first - Lermontov, who wrote back in the 30 of the 19th century: “A year will come, Russia will have a black year when the crown of kings falls ... On that day, a powerful person will appear, and you will recognize him - and you will know why he has a damask knife in his hand ... "
The second person is one of the best publicists for the whole history Of Russia - Mikhail Osipovich Menshikov, who wrote: “The nineteenth century finally approved our spiritual captivity in Europe. We have finally changed our folk cultural work into imitation. From imitation to the West, we have adopted an alien criterion of life, which is unbearable for our nation. We want to live now just as Western luxury, forgetting that neither racial energy nor our nature is the same as there. The West struck the imagination of our upper classes and forced them to rebuild our entire national life with the greatest sacrifices and great danger to it. Like India, which was made from a once rich and more recently prosperous country, is completely impoverished, Russia has become a dainty of Europe in many of the most debilitating relations. Wanting to have all those items of luxury and comfort that are so common in the West, we have to give him not only the surplus of bread, but, like India, his necessary supplies. Our people are chronically undernourished and tend to degeneration. And all this only in order to maintain the brilliance of Europeanism, to enable a small layer of capitalists to go hand in hand with Europe. The nineteenth century should be considered the century of the gradual and, at the end, alarmingly rapid decline of the people's well-being in Russia. If any change of energies does not occur, if the process of imitation of Europe develops further, then Russia risks being ruined without a shot. ” In essence, this is a description of a systemic crisis, a revolution.
"TOMORROW". And February itself fell under the rink of this shift. However, he was her herald. That's what's interesting!
Andrei Fursov. The February coup is not a change of energies, it is an attempt to accomplish the curvaceous bourgeois revolution that is stuck in the political sphere. February plunged Russia into chaos. Political dwarfs and insignificance who could only vault, who did not know their country and their people, using Blok’s metaphor, unleashed wild passions under the yoke of the flawed moon. The whole history of February and then October shows very well the inadequacy of the authorities. Almost the entire establishment of late-imperial Russia made an enormous contribution to the revolution. And it's not one of Nicholas II.
To understand how the revolution occurred in Russia, it is necessary to put the February and October events in the long term. In my opinion, the 1917 year in Russia has become a very important turning point in two long-term segments of history. The first segment is the period between 1861 year - the liberation of the peasants and generally the beginning of the reforms, and 1939 year - the year the end of the Cold War in Russia and the XVIII Congress of the AUCP. 1917 year is a watershed.
If we take European history, then in it 1917 is the year - the turning point of an even longer segment between 1789 - the beginning of the French Revolution, then the appearance of the left Jacobin Modern project, and 1991 - the destruction of the Soviet Union.
"TOMORROW". The tendency associated with the inability of the elite to manage the processes was also characteristic of the Russian empire in the last period of its existence, and in February 1917, when Duma industrialists came to power - demagogues, idle talkers and, in a direct sense, agents of other powers and other civilizations.
Andrei Fursov. One of the main reasons for the rise of February and its failure is the incompatibility of Russia, Russian history as a socio-cultural type with the capitalist system. When Menshikov spoke about the nineteenth century as a century of growing problems in Russia and the impoverishment of the Russian people, he was absolutely right.
If we take, say, Moscow autocracy in the pre-Peter the Great, then with a huge quantitative difference in the standard of living and in the consumption levels of the tops and bottoms, the bottoms and tops still lived in the same economic and cultural system, and the needs of the tops were determined by this system. In Catherine's times, the situation has changed. The Russian nobility began to live not according to the needs determined by the local economy, but according to the needs of Western Europe — its bourgeoisie and aristocracy. These needs were made up entirely of other factors. Take a factor like farming. Our productivity was “self-3 — self-4”, in Europe — self-6-itself-7. Protoindustrialization and the colonial era were already beginning there, when it was possible to rob weak nations. There, the level of need was determined by a much more developed system of agricultural work. That is why, in order for even a small part of the Russian elite to live according to these European needs, it began to exploit the population much more rigidly ... And assign, in the Marxist language, not only a surplus product, but also a part of the necessary. As a result, already under Catherine, the level of exploitation of state and privately owned peasants increased 3 – 3,5 times. Further, this process went only incrementally.
Russia's inclusion in the world capitalist system and the life of its elite, according to other people's needs, was ensured by eating away its future and the future of the country. By the 1859 year, 66% of serfs were laid by landowners to the state. From 1833-th to 1850-th year under Nicholas I, despite all the attempts of the government to economically help the nobility, from 127 thousands of landlord families 24 thousands (almost 20%) went bankrupt. According to the estimates of specialists, in order to lead a socially acceptable noble lifestyle, that is, to give balls, to receive, to have tutors, etc., in Russia at the end of the 18th - the first half of the 19th century, it was necessary to have a hundred serfs (that is, 500 – 600 people) or a money equivalent that only 15 – 20% could afford. That is, the Troekurovs were 15%, the rest were Dubrovskys.
Nicholas I is usually blamed for the fact that he "froze Russia". Yes, he froze the process of decay of Russia because of the life of the leaders not according to his needs. This strategy lasted for a quarter of a century. Alexander II rotting processes defrosted.
In 1870, Marx wrote that Russia would face a serious social revolution in the future. Menshikov believed that "1861 is not able to warn 1905." But Lenin spoke even more clearly: "1905 was generated by 1861." From myself I will add that October 1917-th completed what was not done either in 1861 or in 1905. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the liberation of the peasants became a means and at the same time a by-product of their robbery. It was not for nothing that Nekrasov wrote that the reform had struck at one end against the master, the other at the peasant. The peasants lost a significant part of their plots, that is, in fact, they were robbed. And, perhaps, it is not by chance that the Yeltsin authorities are so fond of Alexander II, who also conducted a "liberation of the people" from lack of freedom in the form of robbery. It is indicative that during the reign of Alexander II the struggle against bashing was largely curtailed - and how else: reforms, you remember. Having defrosted Russia and having received the crisis, Alexander II decided to freeze the crisis itself and thereby pushed Russia onto the path that ended with 1905 and 1917 for years. In fact, the power, carrying out reforms 1860-ies, sought to avoid a revolution on the Western model. Western-style revolutions were avoided; revolution-wise was followed by Russian ones. In 1905 – 1906, the village blazed with Pugachev’s, and since the spring of 1917, the situation has almost recurred.
During the reign of Alexander II, Russia began to turn into a raw materials appendage of the West and foreign capital went into it. In fairness it should be noted that Alexander II and Alexander III strenuously sought to slow down this process, but during the reign of Nicholas II, Russia's dependence on foreign capital began to grow rapidly. Finance Minister Bunge in one of his notes (1886) wrote that the decline of Russian finance began to show itself especially since the 60s, that is, from the very beginning of the reform of Alexander II; “Since 1880, he has become a threatening character. In the absence of even a hint of any improvement, all this is preparing a difficult outcome in the near future: a state bankruptcy, and a coup d’état behind it. ” For such a forecast, Bunge 1 January 1887, was dismissed. After 30 years, his prediction was confirmed.
"TOMORROW". What are the quantitative indicators of foreign capital before the revolution?
Andrei Fursov. If at the beginning of the reign of Nicholas II foreigners controlled 20 – 30% of capital in Russia, and in 1913 year they controlled 60 – 70%, then by September 1917 was 90 – 95%. In these threatening conditions of growing influence of foreign currency, Stolypin appears - a very intelligent and strong-willed person of his time, but limited in class and, therefore, a loser. The main goal of the Stolypin reform was not the economy, the latter was the means. The goal was class: it was necessary to destroy the community, as a ready-made framework of resistance to power. Beginning with Herzen, both revolutionaries and conservatives believed that the community should be preserved at any cost, because for the socialists the community was a forerunner of socialist transformation, and for conservatives it was a stronghold of principles. The 1905 – 1907 revolution showed that the community is a ready-made orgkarkas of the struggle of the peasantry.
Stolypin's task was class in essence. The second stratum of this reform — economic in form and again class in content — was to destroy the economic system based on collectivism and create conditions for the mass privatization of the land (hi Chubais!). The interests of the nobility-landlords reform did not hurt. Moreover, Stolypin sought to provide the landowner, a nobleman, with a class ally in the village, that is, to create a breakwater between the landowners and the bulk of the peasantry. Stolypin was a class limited intelligent man, he did not understand that the peasants and landowners are the main competitors in the struggle for land in Russia. Therefore, in 1917, a strong and vivid little man not only did not defend the landowner, but also led the people to rob the landowner’s manor. And while the poor population set fire to the manor, the shit in the libraries and drowned the pianos in the ponds, these strong strong men, on whom Stolypin was counting, slowly loaded the goods and brought them to their compound.
Stolypin did not manage to destroy the community. Only 2,5 of a million households were separated from the community, i.e. 27%, and they owned only 14% of the land. And when in 1910 – 1911. it became clear that the reform was failing, new laws were issued, aimed already at forced privatization. We forget that Stolypin reform was carried out with the help of violence. Flogged whole peasant meetings, forcibly pushed people out of the community. And still nothing happened. The verdict to the Stolypin reforms was passed first in 1913 at the First Agricultural Congress in Kiev, and then the Provisional Government in 1917 officially recognized the reform as failed. It is indicative that during the civil war the peasants returned more than 90% of the land to communal ownership. This was their answer to Stolypin.
"TOMORROW". What happened if Stolypin’s reform was a success?
Andrei Fursov. It is terrible to think that it would be. The revolution, most likely, would have happened already in 1912 or 1913, because there would be approximately 20 – 25 millions of men in the city whom the Russian industry could not digest at that time. At best, 1,5 – 3 million, no more.
"TOMORROW". But then who and why today spreads the myth of a great and successful statesman?
Andrei Fursov. Stolypin worked to preserve the privileges of the ruling layer. In fact, he was a reactionary. In addition, with the current official demand for a hero of the bourgeois type, there is no such thing in Russian history. On bezrybe Alexander II and Stolypin became the most conditional bourgeois heroes.
"TOMORROW". And this is despite the fact that Stolypin was still a statesman.
Andrei Fursov. That's right - an unconditional statesman, a strong-willed, intelligent man. But, I repeat, class limited. At one time, Barrington Moore said that the great social revolutions are born not from the triumphant cry of the ascending classes, but from the dying roar of those classes over which a wave of progress is about to close. The Stolypin reform here is a classic example.
"TOMORROW". If Russia were alone in the sea of emptiness, then perhaps everything would be different.
Andrei Fursov. Yes, Russia developed as a dependent element of the capitalist system, and hence its many problems. Moreover, if from the middle of the XV to the middle of the XIX century before the Crimean War, Russia was an autonomous world-system (using the terms of I. Wallerstein), then in the second half of the XIX century the situation changed. First, the West itself in 1850-ies has evolved from a world-system into a world system already without any hyphen. And the world system cannot coexist with the world-systems, it must destroy them. It is significant that simultaneously with the Crimean War, the Anglo-French unleashed aggression against Qing China - the Second Opium War. Neither the Crimean War nor the Second Opium reached their maximum goals. But both China and Russia as world systems have ceased to exist.
Since 1860-s, Russia has begun to turn into a dependent element of the world capitalist system, whose owners at that time were the British. After the Crimean War, money was needed for reform and restoration, and Russia received money in the West from banking houses. Thus began the process of forming Russia's dependence on foreign capital. Being engaged in Russia and solving the Russian problem, the British very actively supported Prussia’s claims, trying to make it a counterweight to Russia.
In 1870-71 Prussia defeated France - largely due to the collusion of the British, French and Prussian Masonic lodges. However, the Prussian victory presented the British unexpected unpleasant surprises. First, Prussia, becoming the Second Reich, turned out to be much stronger than the British had expected. Secondly, after the victory over the French, the Germans united all their masonic lodges into one “Geheimes Deutschland” (“Secret Germany”). Prior to this, Masonic lodges had never worn a national character; they had always been liberal cosmopolitan organizations. However, centralization took place here. Thus, the Germans challenged the British in two directions at once — the hidden and open control loops.
In addition, in the 1880s, the world was already largely divided, and there were few areas with natural resources. In the 1884 year at the Berlin Conference, the Europeans decided that those countries that could not use their resources should be opened by force. Officially, it was about Africa, which in fact did not particularly interest anyone. In essence, the Europeans talked about Russia.
"TOMORROW". Then they were still shy. After a hundred years, Madeleine Albright had already spoken openly about Russian resources.
Andrei Fursov. Yes. It was a test, as far as Alexander III has strong nerves. And with nerves he was better than his father. Europe choked on hungry saliva, but did not calm down.
With the 1880-s, the Russian-German question becomes a question of the continued existence of the British Empire. Germany is a competitor, Russia is a resource. During the new European war, the British decided to pit these two countries. War needed to be prepared. The Anglo-Saxons with their characteristic long planning horizon in 25 – 30 years have brilliantly prepared and carried out this operation!
First, it was necessary for Russia and France to get close. The Pope, who owes the Rothschilds, took up the matter. As a result, a Russian-French alliance was concluded in 1892 – 1893. At the end of the 19th century, anti-British sentiments were very strong in France, and the French needed to be shown: one must be friends also with Albion. For this it was necessary for Russia to be defeated somewhere. They chose the enemy - Japan. But Japan needed to be raised first. Therefore, the British help the Japanese to win the Japanese-Chinese war of 1895, then they pump up the country with funds, and after ten years in the Russian-Japanese war, Russia loses. More precisely, Russia does not win this war and shows weakness to everyone. After that, the French begin to turn in the direction of Britain. And in the 1907, an English-Russian agreement is concluded. Before this, the British agency of influence erases all the possibilities of the Russian-German rapprochement. Moreover, Wilhelm and Nikolai were people of a small mind and allowed themselves to be divorced. As a result, in 1907, the scene for the Russian-German clash was ready. It remains to create a structure of financial support, and in the year 1913 appears the Federal Reserve System in the United States, through which the British get money for their campaign.
In general, already at the beginning of the twentieth century there existed two "Great Britain". Great Britain as a state, that is, a subject of international relations, and as a certain supranational subject of world relations. After the German history with “Geheimes Deutschland”, major changes occurred in the closed UK government structures. In particular, fundamentally new, more adequate to the epoch than the Masonic, structures, such as the society “The Group” or “We” (We), created by Cecil Rhodes, closely related to the Rothschilds, appeared. This society coincided with the British establishment on the principle of Euler circles: a part of the establishment (the smaller one) was included there, a part (the large one) was not. At the same time, there were not only selected British, but also selected French and even Russians. According to all the indirect data, the members of the group were our Foreign Minister Alexander Petrovich Izvolsky and our ambassador to Serbia, Nikolai G. Gartvig. Izvolsky was unpopular in Russia, something like Chubais in the Russian Federation. Nicholas II tried several times to send Izvolsky to resign, but each time he was asked for by Edward VII, and he remained. And only when the “Group” decided that Izvolsky would be more useful in France, he was appointed Russia's ambassador to France.
"TOMORROW". What goals did this “Group” set for itself?
Andrei Fursov. There were seven goals. And in this case, the interests of financial capital, Great Britain as a state and closed groups coincided.
1. To establish control over the remaining world resource zones at the end of the 19th century (Russia and southern Africa).
2. Eliminate the Eurasian empires: Germany, Russia, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire, because they interfered with the realization of the goals of the world capitalist class.
3. Destroy Russia and Germany as potential UK continental rivals in global high finance.
4. Destroy Germany as the military-political framework of the German Masonic lodges and Paramasonian structures.
5. Create a single European political entity on the site of the destroyed Eurasian empires - “Venice the size of Europe” - and something like a world body of bankers (the first attempt is the League of Nations).
6. Take control of global finance. Rhodes put it this way: the return of the United States as part of the British Empire.
7. To organize, at a minimum, the Eurasian war to solve all these issues.
"TOMORROW". With the latter happened.
Andrei Fursov. At the end of the 19th century, the pamphlet “Son Kaiser” was published in the British newspaper “Truth” (“Truth”): Wilhelm dreams that Germany and Austria-Hungary suffered a defeat as a result of the war, and in their place on the map of Europe there are small republics but in the place of Russia there is a political desert — there is no state as such. To a large extent, except for Russia, this plan was implemented. It is very interesting that at the beginning of 1914, according to the memoirs of the leader of the Social Revolutionaries, V.M. Chernova, Joseph Pilsudski, then a socialist, the future dictator of Poland, said at a meeting of the Geographical Society in France that there would soon be a war in Europe in which Germany, Austria-Hungary, and then Russia would be defeated first.
"TOMORROW". He was aware, as they say.
Andrei Fursov. By the way, namely Izvolsky and Gartvig, members of the “Group”, actively participated in the creation of the Balkan League, directed against Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire. Gartvig, being the ambassador of Russia in Serbia, was in close contact with Dimitrijevic (Apis), the head of Black Hand. This organization was associated with British intelligence. 28 June 1914, the Gavrilo Princip, kills Austrian Archduke Ferdinand, a supporter of peace with Russia. By the way, in the same summer two more people who could interfere with military actions were put out of action. This is Rasputin, who received a blow with an almost 20-centimeter blade, and miraculously survived, and Jaures, the leader of the French socialists, a well-known pacifist — he was killed.
I wonder what happened next with the defendants in the murder of the Archduke. Gavrilo Princip had cyanide with him, he took it, but instead of poison it turned out to be a placebo, and he did not die: the Serb was needed alive for the trial, he was sentenced to twenty years in prison, and he died in prison from tuberculosis. Gartwig died suddenly in the same year 1914 in the Austrian embassy in Belgrade, Apis was shot in 1917, and in 1917 Gartwig's correspondence with Russian Foreign Minister Sazonov disappeared in the same year. In 1919, Izvolsky died suddenly, just starting work on his memoirs.
After the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, the Anglo-Saxons began an insidious game. While the British press attacked the Serbs, urging the Austro-Hungarians to take revenge, British diplomats rushed to St. Petersburg and began to explain to Nicholas II that Austria-Hungary was an aggressor, that it was preparing a strike against Serbia, and it needed to be stopped and curbed. The king acted listlessly, as if relying on the will of fate. The role of rock in this play was played by the agents of the “Group”. This agent was also supposed to break the resistance of a large part of the British establishment, which did not want war at all. By the way, Herbert Wells in his autobiography admitted that Sir Edward Gray, the British Foreign Secretary (and a member of the “Group”), started the war, forcing the Kaiser and the German government to believe that Britain would not enter the war, even if Germany will start it. The fact is that when Gray met with William, he always talked about the relations of four countries: France, Russia, Austria-Hungary and Germany. Each time he made it clear that Britain was a neutral country, and William believed it. Although, according to Lord Louis Mountbatten, the son of the second lord of the Admiralty, the British fleet was put on alert the week before the start of the war. Churchill began mobilization fleetwithout even notifying the cabinet.
Decisive events occurred on August 3 in the House of Commons. Gray made a completely false speech in the House, that the British did everything to achieve peace, but did not succeed, and offered to vote for a declaration of war. Then the members of the "Group" announced a break, and Gray rushed to his ministry, from where he sent the ultimatum to Germany. He already knew that Germany had begun the invasion of Belgium, and would reject his ultimatum. After the break, supporters of peace continued to advocate for the preservation of peace. Then the member of the “Group” Lord Balfour announced: there is not enough quorum for the debate, so we will vote without a quorum. So the members of the “Group” divorced the British Parliament as gamblers.
"TOMORROW". They were broken through the knee.
Andrei Fursov. 4 August 1914, George V at Buckingham Palace declared war on Germany. For Wilhelm it was, of course, a shock. But - an important detail - the British, being engaged in Germans and Russians, missed another major spider in the world system - the United States, which had its own plans, different from Great Britain. Moreover, they conflicted, if not with the whole of Great Britain, then with the very serious British Rothschild family. The Rockefellers created Standard Oil, and this corporation was already actively supporting the revolution in Russia in 1905.
"TOMORROW". And what about Russia? Do people understand what is coming?
Andrei Fursov. We had a few people who understood very well what was going on. In February 1914, a member of the State Council, Peter Nikolaevich Durnovo, wrote to the Tsar a note in which he says that war will lead to social upheavals throughout Europe, but “Russia, of course, is the most favorable ground for social upheavals, where the masses undoubtedly profess principles of unconscious socialism . The Russian commoner, the peasant and the worker are equally not looking for political rights that are not necessary and incomprehensible to him. The peasant dreams of granting him foreign land, a worker of transferring to him all the capital and profits of the manufacturer, and beyond that their desires do not go. And it is only to throw these slogans widely into the population, if only the government authorities irrevocably allow agitation in this direction, and Russia will undoubtedly be plunged into anarchy, which it experienced during the memorable period of the 1905 – 1906 turmoil. The war with Germany will create extremely favorable conditions for such agitation. As already noted, the war is fraught with enormous difficulties for us and cannot be a triumphal march to Berlin. Inevitable and military setbacks. Let's hope - partial. These or other shortcomings in our supply will be inevitable. With the exceptional nervousness of our society, these circumstances will be given exaggerated importance, and with the opposition of this society, everything will be put in the guilt of the government. ”
"TOMORROW". All right.
Andrei Fursov. For 12 years before Durnovo, a striking accuracy prediction was given by the Minister of Internal Affairs Plehve: “The revolution will be artificial, thoughtlessly made by the so-called educated classes, social elements. They have one goal - to overthrow the government in order to sit in its place, if only in the form of a constitutional government. Whatever you may say, the tsarist government has experience, traditions, and a habit of government. Notice that all of our most useful, most liberal reforms were made exclusively by the government, on her initiative. Usually, even if the society is not sympathetic from individuals, from social elements, which will be replaced by the current government. What will happen? The mere desire for power. At least, even animated from their point of view, love for the motherland. They can never master the movement. They do not sit on the ground for the mere fact that they have issued so many bills that they will have to pay them and immediately make concessions. They, having stood at the head, will find themselves in the power of things in the tail of the movement. Under these conditions, they will fall down with all their theories and utopias at the first siege of power. And then all the harmful criminal elements, thirsting for destruction and disintegration of Russia with Jews at the head, will come out of the underground ”. By the way, Lenin agreed with Pleve about the latter, who at one time noted that with the sabotage that had taken place after the revolution, a huge number of Jews had moved to the cities, filled the state apparatus and thus saved the revolution.
And there was another person who guessed the upcoming foreign policy situation. It was Alexei Efimovich Vandam (Yedrikhin), who, writing down the actions of the British and Americans, wrote in 1913 that "we will soon see these actions against us." So it happened. The war became a direct prologue of February and October.
"TOMORROW". Awesome Of course, those documents and the forecasts that you read, speak about the high level of people who were in power in the empire. And, of course, those forces and phenomena that were called rock were long clear and visible to so many intelligent people.
Andrei Fursov. Yes, many people felt the revolution was approaching, but the urine system was bringing this revolution closer. The insensitivity of the mainstream to reality was an indicator of the dying system. The era, whose face in the culture was the so-called Silver Age, was in fact the era of the decay of Russia. And it is precisely this decay that led to February; it is one of the manifestations of the activity of social rot.
Information