I smoked the sky of God
He wore royal livery
Litter the treasury of the people
And I thought the age to live like this ...
And suddenly ... the Lord is righteous!
Nekrasov N. A. To whom to live well in Russia
He wore royal livery
Litter the treasury of the people
And I thought the age to live like this ...
And suddenly ... the Lord is righteous!
Nekrasov N. A. To whom to live well in Russia
Mosaic. Victory parade. Authors G. Rublev, B. Iordansky
Metro Dobryninskaya Moscow
Metro Dobryninskaya Moscow
As we wrote in previous articles at the HE devoted to the key stages in the development of Russian civilization, the overtaking type of development will always be accompanied by overpressure from the one who is being caught up: cultural, economic and military.
Interrupt this "samsara" can only catch up and overtake, but it is more important and preferable to create their own "challenges".
Or maybe there is no need for this crazy race? Perhaps it is better to “take advantage” of the fruits of Western achievements without resistance? After all, Columbus was touched by the meekness of the natives of "India", who were subsequently completely exterminated by the Spaniards.
“The West is the only civilization that has had a huge and sometimes destructive effect on all other civilizations,”- wrote Samuel Huntington.
Russia, which has adopted Western technology, was able to withstand the West as a civilization.
This was enough to immediately identify Russia as an aggressor. N. Ya. Danilevsky, long before the civilizational theory of Toynbee pointed to this problem. Comparing the situation in the nineteenth century. with the rejection by Germany of territories in small Denmark, and the suppression of the Polish uprising, he indicated: sharp criticism of Russia and the absence of such an address against Germany is determined by one, Russia's alien to Europe, there are clashes within the framework of one civilization, here - a clash of civilizations.
Of course, the countries included in this civilization may have contradictions, they are often colossal, such as, for example, the centuries-old struggle of France and England for hegemony in the Western world. But these contradictions fade when it comes to clashes with other civilizations, for example, as in the attack on China in the 19th century. Or in the case when Russian victories in the Balkans, during the 1877-1878 war, were leveled by the decision of the Berlin Congress of Western Countries:
“We have lost one hundred thousand soldiers and one hundred million gold rubles, and all our sacrifices are in vain”. (A.M. Gorchakov).
So the First World War was a war for hegemony in the Western world, and therefore, in those conditions, and for power over the rest of the world. And the Second World War, at least in the framework of the main theater of operations - the Great Patriotic War, was a war of two civilizations, therefore there is such a difference in the victims of these two wars and in the tension of forces.
So, this challenge or aggression from the neighboring, more technically equipped, western civilization in Russia gave rise to two successful modernization projects: one was carried out by the “Westerner” Peter I, the other, strange as it sounds to many readers, the “Westerners” were Bolsheviks.
As we wrote above, the modernization of Peter allowed Russia to become a full-fledged participant in European and world politics, often to the detriment of itself.
The problems of Peter, as mentioned above, were enough until the period of the Western industrial revolution.
The unwillingness of the supreme power to carry out a new modernization led to the fact that by the First World War the country had become a Western semi-colony, and in this war for hegemony in the Western world, the question of who would dominate by the results of the war: French or German capital was decided in relation to Russia. Of course, subject to the external attributes of sovereignty.
During the reign of Nicholas I, in the eyes of which revolutionary changes were taking place among neighbors, Russia had a chance to carry out a new modernization and solve the most important issue of the Russian "imperial people": to give land and freedom, which we wrote about in the article on the Military Council "Nicholas I. Lost modernization". But the management system built by Nikolai Pavlovich, bureaucratic and formal-decorative, a system of petty police control and constant pressure, could not contribute to the development of the country, especially modernization:
"What a strange ruler this is, he plows his vast state and does not sow any fruitful seeds." (M.D. Nesselrode)
In the framework of this cycle, devoted to the key factors of the development of Russia as a civilization, we will not dwell on all the vicissitudes of the post-reform development, list the details of the “revolution from above” of Alexander II or the counter-reforms of Alexander III, it is important that in these actions there was no systematic development of the state, that is , of course, the country was moving forward, but in the framework of its development, like Civilization, it was radically insufficient, and reforms or counter-reforms only affected particulars, without touching the essence.
An important factor in inhibition was the complete lack of goal setting. The idea of an “absolute monarchy” could only be a form of salvation for the ruling class and status quo for its own economic well-being, but not a goal for the country. And in this regard, it is pointless to pose the question: how was it in France or England, countries forming in other frameworks, and developing during this period, largely due to the exploitation of other civilizations and peoples, and not at the expense of only their "imperial people" , First of all.
Secondly, even the right actions or reforms, in the context of a management system that does not have goals and a vision for the country's development, could not change the situation.
For example, the gold ruble was the “hardest currency”, but large-scale government lending abroad and the power of external capital in the Russian industry, reduced its “hardness” to nothing, made it relevant only in case of paying kokotok in Paris or playing at Monaco or Baden casinos- Baden
In such conditions, the outstripping pace of development of Russia in comparison with Western countries in the post-reform period, and especially before the First World War, in the absence of modernization, did not narrow the gap with these countries, but the low level of well-being, education and culture of the broad masses compared with Western countries it was written even in official sources.
In terms of industrial production in 1913, Russia was inferior: the USA by 14,3 times, Germany by 6 times, England by 4,6 times, France by 2,5. (Lyashchenko P.I.)
Earth and will.
The cornerstone problem of the Russian Empire was the agrarian question. The question concerned as much as 85% of the country's population.
To find a way out of it, within the framework of the proposed management system, was absolutely impossible: every half-step government move in this direction only worsened the situation. All proposed solutions were anti-peasant: the Great Reform reduced peasant allotments by 20%, redemption payments exceeded the economic possibilities of the peasant economy, which led to arrears and mass impoverishment: in the European part of the Republic of Ingushetia, the income amounted to 163 cop. from tithing, payments and taxes from tithing - 164,1 cop., for example, in the north-west of the country, where the situation was extremely unfavorable in the Novgorod province, with 2,5 shower plots, income from agriculture per year was 22 rubles. 50 cop., And the amount of fees was equal to 32 rubles. 52,5 cop. In more favorable conditions of the St. Petersburg province, income was equal to fees, and this despite the fact that the income was not only from agriculture, but also from latrine industries. (Kashchenko S.G., Degterev A.Ya., Raskin D.I.) What is the meaning of the 1874 deficit budget achieved by the best finance minister of the Republic of Ingushetia M.Kh. Reiter in such circumstances?
In 1860, in the European provinces of RI there were 50, 3 million peasants, and in 1900, already 86,1 million, in proportion, the size of the allotment per capita changed from 4,8 dess. until 2,6 dec. in 1900, when the country was overpopulated, capitalist rent was killed by rents that exceeded it several times, which led to the sale of large land property to peasants, as pointed out by agrarian economist A.V. Chayanov. (Zyryanov P.N., Chayanov A.V.)
The state, using taxes forcing the peasant to simply bring the product to the market at the expense of personal consumption, without modernization in agriculture, was destroying subsistence farming.
Thus a vicious circle was formed: there was a decrease in large-scale efficient economy and an increase in subsistence farming, which was unable to become a "farm" due to the lack of capitalist rent and a primitive level of agriculture.
After the revolution or the new Pugachev region of 1905, the purchase of payments was canceled, but at the same time, the agrarian, or rather the political reform of P.A. Stolypin began, which aimed to create a strong master, support for the decrepit autocracy. Modern researchers believe that for its implementation would take more than 50 peaceful years. Unlike the 1861 reform, Stolypinskaya was poorly prepared and not backed by finances. And it was supposed to affect the essential strata of the peasant worldview, face the centuries-old institute - the peasant community, a world that after 1905-1906. categorically and deliberately opposed the "Russian enclosure."
The peasant world looked differently at the situation with the land, which was reflected in the mass peasant orders to the deputies: a complete black redistribution. According to Stolypin's reform, by 1916, only 25% of the lands of the communities passed into individual ownership, but during the new revolution the peasantry annulled this situation. (Kara-Murza S.G.)
In the absence of modernization in agriculture and low land, the absence of the industrial revolution in Russia and urbanization, the destruction of the community would not only worsen the situation of the peasant masses, but would also lead to new mass suffering.
In the 30's of the twentieth century. collectivization was compensated by industrialization and urbanization, the flow of population into cities, was carried out in the compressed pre-war years, finally implementing what was not done during the 50 of peaceful, post-reform years.
So, according to the situation 1909 -1913 years. we have the consumption of mineral fertilizers per 1 hectare: Belgium - 236 kg., Germany - 166 kg., France - 57, 6 kg., Russia - 6,9 kg. As a result of comparable crops, the yield in the Republic of Ingushetia is 3,4 times less than in Germany, and 2 times less than in France. (Lyashenko I.P.)
Formally, all the tasks were reduced to pumping out “raw materials” from the village for the purpose of selling abroad, according to the formula “we will not eat, but will take out”. At this level, according to data from 1906, the average consumption of the Russian peasant was inferior to English by 5 times. (Russian physiologist I. Tarkhanov) 1911% of the produced grain was exported to the heavy hungry 53,4, and 1913 kg was grown per capita in the record 472. grain, while countries with production less than 500 kg per person did not export grain, but imported it (Kara-Murza SG).
The pumping out of capital from the countryside could have been justified if it had contributed to the development of the country, the industrial and cultural revolution or reform, but we will repeat this again, for fifty post-reform years, nothing has been done. As an economist P.P. Migunov wrote on the eve of the First World War in an official work dedicated to the 300 anniversary of the Romanov dynasty:
“Russia, like all other cultural states, has made great strides in the matter of its economic and cultural development, but it will have to spend a lot of efforts to catch up with other nations that have gone ahead of us.”
In the end, the peasant guard, but already in gray overcoats and with rifles, was tired. If the "enslavement" of the peasants was predetermined during the first civil war in Russia (Troubles) (1604-1613 gg.), Then the final exit from the "enslavement" also occurred during the new civil war of the twentieth century.
It was in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that the dynasty, the mediocre administrative apparatus and the ruling class did not cope with the challenges, did not modernize in time, and cornered the solution of the problems that were resolved in the course of the new modernization, which cost the country enormous victims.
Here is what the Volunteers wrote to the accession to the throne, Alexander III, warning of the danger of revolution (!):
“There can be only two ways out of this situation: either a revolution, absolutely inevitable, which cannot be prevented by any executions, or a voluntary appeal of the supreme power to the people. We do not set conditions for you. Let our offer not shock you. ”
The end of the letter is noteworthy:
“So, Your Majesty, decide. Before you are two ways. The choice depends on you. But then we only ask fate that your mind and conscience prompt you a decision that is only consistent with the good of Russia, with your own dignity and obligations to your native country. ”
The problem of governing a country, and especially a country like Russia, is often connected with the first person: revolutionaries do not make a revolution, it is done by the government in power of the revolution, as L.N. wrote Tolstoy.
And this situation was with the kings in the nineteenth century, and it doesn’t matter whether they were prepared for the throne as Alexander II and III or Nicholas II, or not prepared as Nicholas I. Did the tsar work for days like Nicholas I and Alexander III , or only during “business hours,” like Alexander II or Nicholas II. But all of them only performed the service, routine, daily, burdensome for some, someone better, someone worse, but no more, and the country needed a leader capable of moving it forward, creating a new management and development system, and not just the main clerk, albeit outwardly similar to the emperor. This is the problem of managing the period of the last Romanovs and the tragedy for the country, however, in the end, and for the dynasty.
The Bolsheviks had to solve these problems in other, more terrible conditions for the country. And the Bolsheviks did not naively demand, like Stolypin, twenty years of calm, I understand that there is no time, "this should have been done yesterday", "otherwise they will crush." S. Huntington wrote:
“The rise to power of Marxism, first in Russia, then in China and Vietnam, was the first phase of the departure from the European international system to the post-European multi-civilization system ... Lenin. Mao and Ho Chi Minh adapted it for themselves [meaning Marxist theory - VE] in order to challenge Western power, as well as to mobilize their peoples and affirm their national identity and autonomy as opposed to the West. ”
New modernization ... and not only
As we see, in addition to the modernization project, they created something more.
The Russian Communists made a structure that itself began to form “challenges” for Western civilization, which had not had them since the time of the Turkish threat or Islamic civilization.
Communist ideas: the idea of a world without exploitation, a world without colonies, an equivalent exchange between peoples, in the end the “world peace” of these ideas-challenges, of course, warped the “old world” - the world of the West in which “the English people really resembled a bulldog tearing off the leash. "
This was not inferior to England and other major European countries: one of them, Germany, in the end, in search of a "place in the sun" finally fell into the 30-s of the twentieth century.
These "challenges" received a huge response from the peoples under the direct or indirect colonial yoke of Western countries, from the majority of national liberation movements from China to America. This is not about evaluation: good or bad, "we were friends with those who declared themselves to be adherents of socialism, but in fact were not." This is the lyrics.
A. Blok, brilliantly intuitively, in the middle of a catastrophe, when “strangers, the haze of the north went to the bottom, how debris and tin cans go”, he caught the essence of a new “challenge” to the world:
Come to us!
From the horrors of war
Come into peaceful embrace!
Before it's too late - the old sword in the sheath,
Comrades! We will become - brothers!
Yes, and this is lyrics, but in practice, Russian civilization for the first time in its stories challenged the West, or in military terms, seized the initiative. What was not before, especially not after the Soviet power in the history of Russian civilization.
Soviet Russia became a creative threat to the civilization that captured the world. As L. Feuchwanger exclaimed:
“How nice it is after the imperfection of the West to see such a work that you can say with all your heart: yes, yes, yes!”
Understanding this clearly, the myth of the conceptual aggressiveness of Russia was revived in the West. Even after the end of World War II, when the USSR had to lift the European part of the country from ruins, feed the Eastern European countries, tearing off the latter from its own population for decades, which the former countries of people's democracy are bashfully silent about, accusing the Union of occupation, the former European allies tried to declare his new threat to the world:
"Western mythology ascribes to the communist world the same alienness as any planet: the USSR is a world intermediate between Earth and Mars."(Bart R.)
The military threat from the USSR is a figment of the vigorous imagination of Western politicians or targeted propaganda, while in Western scientific historiography since the 70 of the XX century it was recognized
“That the Soviet Union acted not so much in pursuance of a master plan for the conquest of world domination, but because of considerations of a local and defense nature, which the official West did not accept or rather understand.”(Schlesinger A. Jr.)
The problem was the same; the Country of Soviets could impose its agenda on the West: its challenge is a more significant threat than weapon - a call - which required a “response”:
“... today there are two factors, A. Toynbee noted, speaking in favor of communism: firstly, disappointment with the previous attempts to introduce a Western lifestyle and, secondly, the discrepancy between the rapid population growth and the means of food ... The truth is that offering the Japanese and the Chinese are a secularized version of Western civilization, we give them “a stone instead of bread,” while the Russians, offering them communism along with technology, give them at least some bread, even black and stale, if you like, but suitable for consumption, for he is with erzhit grain spiritual food, without which it can not live people. "
And such steps of the Soviets as the cultural revolution, free medicine, free education, free housing were completely breakthrough in the history of mankind and this was done in a "single country" with an extremely low starting material level of prosperity compared to the West, which went through a clash of civilizations in 1941-1945gg. When people of Western culture behaved on the territory of the USSR as conquistadors in Mexico.
Starting from the beginning of the 70 of the XX century, we will talk about problems and slipping along this path in the next article.
Gradually, from the 60 of the 20th century, the USSR began to formulate economic challenges, as philosopher G. Marcuse noted:
“By virtue of total administration, automation in the Soviet system can go at an unstoppable speed when it reaches a certain technical level. This threat to the positions of the Western world in international rivalry would make it accelerate the rationalization of the production process ... ”
And here is what management guru Lee Yakkok wrote in the early 80's:
“The Soviet Union and Japan are directing a lot of efforts to increase the level of technological knowledge in their countries, but we cannot keep up with them.”
The Bolshevik or Soviet system, which creates assertiveness in the promotion of ideas, was an ideal formula, thanks to which a less aggressive internal content society could really compete in the international arena, creating system challenges rather than mosquito bites, serving as a scarecrow or a whipping boy.
To be continued ...