Rampant liberalism? Why the empire fell apart
“The tragic ring of the Russian is turning stories. We are witnessing the eternal Russian drama of the destruction of centralism, which holds giant spaces together, many peoples, languages, cultures, ensures the existence of Russia as a whole. The liberalism of Yeltsin, who divided the Soviet Union, after the 1991 year ... "
A. Prokhanov
A. Prokhanov
Sad history lessons
Of course, quite often history is a policy that has been overturned into the past. Of course, some historians like to study history the way they like, and to learn exactly the lessons that need to be learned based on the current political agenda. Of course, history can be interpreted very, very differently, including in the way that certain political forces like it.
However, the desire to portray the collapse of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union precisely as a consequence of the "rampant liberalism" seems strange enough for anyone who is even a little familiar with Russian history. Everything was a little wrong there.
Neither Nicholas II nor Gorbachev were democrats, no matter what anyone said. And that would be half the trouble. True, the womb is that they were not strong (or at least not bad) rulers either. If someone does not remember, then Nikolai literally forced abdicate, and during the rapid transformation of Russian society at the beginning of the 20 century and even during the war for no he did not want to go for real reforms. I didn’t want to. Even at gunpoint. And he was not going to share real power with any Duma.
Already at the end of the century of the 20, in the non-belligerent industrial superpower of the USSR, Mikhail Sergeyevich behaved completely similarly. He did not want any real democratization and any real political reforms. He was more engaged in PR. By PR of yourself, beloved. Why do you need some kind of “democracy” when you have such a good, beautiful (and talkative) Secretary General as the head of state? And even in December 91 (!) He categorically did not want to leave the government. When everything was already lost and the whole society was forgiving him. And there was no longer a country called the USSR.
Then Raisa Maksimovna “chatted” him. By the way, one cannot fail to draw another analogy between these "great politicians", namely, the female factor in discrediting them: the "German queen" - Raisa Maksimovna. Why is this so important? And this moment was noted by Kara-Murza Sr. What is most important in the Western political system - the standard of living. The system quite easily perceives the discredit of individual politicians and the entire system, but ... a drop in living standards leads to dramatic consequences.
In Russia, this is not so. By itself, the decline in living standards still does not lead to anything, but the “murdered prince” changes everything categorically and dramatically. “The Tsar ... is not real!” Therefore, oddly enough, in Russia, the moral and reputational aspect of maintaining power is dominant. You can lose all the money, you can lose the battle, but you can not lose the reputation. No way. That is why the “violent activity” of Alexandra Fedorovna and Raisa Maximovna had very serious consequences. Yes ... Caesar's wife should be beyond suspicion. There is no arguing.
But in general, both Nikolai and Mikhail did not show any “creeps” towards democracy. Both the one and the other wanted to rule alone ... but they could not. Just because of their personal qualities, they could not fully rule such a complex country as Russia. It did not work out for them. Jamb after jamb, failure after failure.
That is, as we all perfectly understand, a bad driver can break a car, not because this is his goal, but because this is the end result of his activity, aimed at something completely different. Both tsarist Russia under the leadership of Nikolai Alexandrovich and the proletarian USSR under the leadership of Mikhail Sergeyevich smoothly moved not towards democracy, but towards chaos. The system was rigid, the system was secret, the system was anti-democratic. But the "edit" did not work. Hungry, and therefore angry peasants, “aggressive” neighbors, “untimely” technical revolution ... Yes, a lot of things. And everything went awry, and everything was peddling.
What is the root cause of the collapse?
And this is characteristic: both the Soviet Union and tsarist Russia had a very solid base, a very healthy foundation, very serious achievements, very interesting prospects ... and then it all went down the drain. The problem, it seems now, was still not in the liberal liberals, but in the "control loop" itself.
Gorbachev everything happened much faster (the era of scientific and technological revolution after all!), But Nikolai had a good chance to think it over and weigh everything ... The war with Japan and the revolution of the 1905 year is a kind of very easy version of what happened later with Germany. A kind of "echo of the future." There Nikolai still rushed to battle cruisers to build samurai for revenge ... That was not what they had to do. Not at all.
War is a reassessment of values and the balance of forces on the battlefield. One side demonstrates superiority over the other. With all the ensuing consequences. The problem of Nicholas II was precisely in the numerous failures in the military. Too many defeats. Too many “stocks” of management in general. And step by step, discontent and misunderstanding grew in the country.
And what happened in February of 17 is a kind of “accumulated amount”. The autocrat did not play any “democracy”. He could not manage the country.
With Mikhail Sergeyevich, everything happened much faster, although there was no big war and the people were by no means starving (at first). But the growing "shoals" in management. Over and over and over and over again ... But even in the hot summer of 91, Mikhail Sergeyevich categorically did not want to resign and did not see his mistakes fundamentally. And he was not going to change anything.
The “revolutionized” situation with both Gorbachev and the last Romanov looked something like this: they already "got" and "pissed off" all of Russia, but they themselves sincerely wondered: what’s wrong? The “bewildered” Nikolai was soon shot, and Gorbachev continued to sincerely be perplexed: what’s wrong? Even after the collapse of the USSR. Although, in principle, Nikolai also managed to observe the complete collapse of "his" empire.
That is, tough management in itself does not lead to victory and few people are interested in general. “Managed”, oddly enough, are primarily interested in the results of this “tough management”. Stalin did get to Berlin, although not on the first try. Lee Kuan Yu made the same pearl from Singapore, although it is not so simple with the causes and consequences.
Brezhnev was blamed not for lack of democracy, but primarily for stagnation. "Fell asleep on the road" our dear secretary general. Therefore, the opposition between “rotten liberalism” and “tough authoritarianism” looks somewhat far-fetched. Stalin was great not for his authoritarianism, but for his victories. "No matter what color the cat is, the main thing is that it catches mice." That's what the father of the Chinese economic miracle used to say.
By the way, why are there Japanese, Korean, German, Chinese, Singaporean economic miracles, and the combination of “Russian miracle” causes only irony? In the case of “rotten liberalism”, which destroyed both the Romanov empire and the “Politburo empire”, it seems to me that the cause is actively and purposefully confused with the investigation. That is, just the “rampant liberalism” in Russia is, as a rule, not the reason for the collapse, it is rather a consequence of the collapse of the rigid system.
But the slaughter phrase “But under Stalin there was order!” You must answer like this: “But under Stalin there were victories.” And not a dull sitting in a swamp, voiced by patriotic slogans. Remember that Jew in the Tretyakov Gallery who advised a fellow officer to imitate not his "accent", but already directly and directly to Count Suvorov-Rymniksky? The situation is somewhat similar.
- Oleg Egorov
- pbs.twimg.com
Information