Disputes about tsarist Russia: an aborted flight or a journey into the abyss
“Now in the minds and souls of the Russian people
the most terrible revolution is taking place,
which ever took place in stories...
an entire age-old worldview is collapsing...
And this catastrophic revolution...
not some malicious revolutionaries,
but the distraught power itself, drawn by some kind of fate.
Deputy of the State Duma V. A. Maklakov
(December 27 1916 of the year)
the most terrible revolution is taking place,
which ever took place in stories...
an entire age-old worldview is collapsing...
And this catastrophic revolution...
not some malicious revolutionaries,
but the distraught power itself, drawn by some kind of fate.
Deputy of the State Duma V. A. Maklakov
(December 27 1916 of the year)
Controversy about Tsarist Russia
Liberals and part of the clergy often regret that pre-revolutionary Russia "which we have lost." A film by S. Govorukhin “The Russia We Lost” (1992) and Metropolitan Tikhon’s latest project (2021) “The Fall of the Empire. Russian Lesson”, a lot of scientific papers have been written. One of the most famous is the positivist article by B. L. Brazol (1959) “The reign of Emperor Nicholas II in facts and figures (1894–1917).
Among the modern ones are the work of B. N. Mironov “Russian Modernization and Revolution” and others, in which it is proved that the country had an “economic miracle”, high economic growth rates and a constant increase in the standard of living of the people. Mironov's work caused a lot of skeptical publications.
Another message of liberal propaganda is that what the Bolsheviks did, for example, the GOELRO plan, was planned under Nicholas II.
A new wave of optimism was caused by the works of P. Gregory (USA) (“Economic Growth of the Russian Empire (late XNUMXth – early XNUMXth century: New calculations and estimates”), who believes that if there had not been a revolution in Russia, we would have come to a standard of living However, another American, R. S. Allen (From Farm to Factory: A New Interpretation of the Soviet Industrial Revolution), believes that we most likely followed the path of Argentina.
Where does the wind come from?
Why should Americans praise Tsarist Russia (CR)?
Because our liberalism is, on the one hand, a 100% American project, and a return to the past, on the other. And we need to strengthen the legitimacy of both. In 1967, in the book of the emigrant historian G. Katkov, the revolution was explained by the activities of German agents. At the same time, one of the main architects of the Cold War, a specialist in Russian history, J. Kennan called on Western historians to show the achievements of the tsarist autocracy and the random nature of the revolution. Grants from the Kennan Institute were received by many prominent "revisionist" historians, for example, P. Gregory, D. Field, P. Gatrell, whom CR apologists like to refer to. And the same Mironov also did an internship at this institute.
The first film by Metropolitan Tikhon (then archimandrite) “The Fall of the Empire. Byzantine Lesson” – a hint at modern Russia, addressed to our elites, was received extremely positively. The second project was met with skepticism. The author warns against the threat of "orange revolutions".
Our elites are afraid that the patience of the people will end. So what is more important: to teach the elites or to humble the people? The patience of the people has an end - it was like that until 1905, and then it went like a snowball. But the effectiveness of the state is determined by the top.
All the same, let's not speculate, using false promises that someone then lived very well, probably for someone, but not for everyone. Or manipulate numbers. It is absolutely wrong to compare some prices and someone's specific income. To assess reality, there are quite certain indicators.
Were there any legends about paradise before the revolution? And if it was so good for everyone, why was it demolished so harshly?
What destroyed the empire?
Indeed, under Emperor Nicholas II, Russia had good economic growth rates, railways were being built, and the country's population was growing rapidly. But, firstly, this could not continue indefinitely (more on that below), secondly, an increase does not always indicate the magnitude of the indicator, and thirdly, all this had a downside.
During the period from 1880 to 1914, the population increased by 2,2 times - from 82 million to 182 million people. For the period 1861–1891. the length of railways increased from 1,5 thousand to 28 thousand versts, and by 1899 it became 58 thousand versts. During the years 1890-1900. coal production soared by 271%, iron and steel production - by 262%, oil - by 262%. The budget increased by 2,8 times from 1 billion rubles. (214) to 1885 in 3.
The volume of industrial production in Russia for the period from 1860 to 1913 increased 10,5 times, while in Germany - only 6 times, in France - 3, in England - 2,5, in the USA - 6 times. .
The increase is large, but the values in absolute terms are not so large, and leading in terms of rates, Russia produced in 1913 iron and steel almost 7 times less than the United States, 2,5 times less than Germany, and more than 2 times less than England and France; produced 18 times less coal than the USA, 10 times less than England, 5 times less than Germany. Russia also lagged far behind other capitalist countries in cotton processing (I. V. Maevsky, “The Economy of Russian Industry under the First World War”, Moscow, 1957).
The national income per person in Russia for the period from 1894 to 1913 increased by 34 rubles (50%) - from 67 rubles to 101 rubles. An average of 2,6% per year is a fairly good indicator. But the level of income itself was very low.
The national income per capita in 1913 in ruble equivalent was: in Russia - 102,2 rubles, in the USA - 695, in England - 463, in France - 355 and in Germany 292 rubles. According to A. Ostrovsky in a polemic with B. N. Mironov, after the author corrects the data, the average income of 80% of the population is estimated at about 70 rubles (that is, it was at the level of a prisoner in prison).
Economic growth was largely driven by foreign capital and a huge increase in external debt, and high population growth resulted in land scarcity. The gold standard introduced by S. Witte fettered the possibility of issuing the ruble and hindered development.
The growth of the agricultural sector was facilitated by a long cycle of rising prices (with the exception of crises) for grain in the world and domestic markets, but the development of agricultural production was predominantly intensive. The main share of the population was rural, and the labor productivity and technology of the village were backward, which led to a low standard of living and difficult living conditions.
Debt bondage of the state led to the export of all surplus agricultural products, depriving the country of sources of consumption and accumulation. The state was never able to carry out sufficient industrialization, introduce mechanization and advanced technologies in the countryside, and solve problems with affordable mass education. All this was connected with the problem of management efficiency, the mentality of the ruling class and the peculiarities of monetary policy.
Then the Bolsheviks were able to solve all these tasks quite successfully, having made the second “great leap” after Peter I. According to the “Challenge-Response” law of the famous English historian Arnold Toynbee, the survival of a civilization is determined by the ability of the ruling stratum to meaningfully act on the challenges of history (fate).
Our history follows Toynbee's law quite clearly: the CR collapsed after losing the First World War; and the USSR was able to build Empire No. 2, an alternative to the US that won World War II. And this same law will quite clearly define the future of our country in the period up to 2025, when we will once again have to step up what we have lost in 30 years of liberalism.
One of the best works on the CR is the book by the famous historian S. A. Nefedov “Demographic and structural analysis of the socio-economic history of Russia. Late XNUMXth - early XNUMXth century. The author explains the reason for the collapse of the CR in the framework of the standard demographic-structural theory. In addition to the author, the majority of unbiased historians (many dozens of historians of the pre-revolutionary, Soviet and modern period) recognize: the problem of agrarian overpopulation of the country, the low efficiency of agriculture due to climatic conditions and technical backwardness, an excess of labor in the countryside, a low standard of living as a peasantry, as well as the working class.
According to these factors, in Russia there was:
1) the rapid increase in the number of the lower classes of the population in conditions of limited resources;
2) the situation of the population was difficult, the state began to experience financial difficulties and problems with tax collection;
3) excessive spending during the First World War caused a financial crisis of the state, which grew into a collapse of supply and the country as a whole.
Let's condense the other side of the "positive" statistics.
In 1913, the grain yield in Russia was 8,7 centners per hectare and was lower than in Canada (15 centners), the USA (11,7 centners) and Denmark (21 centners).
The absolute number of the rural population grew continuously, rising from 71 in 760 to 1885 in 103.
According to N. A. Rubakin's "Russia in Figures" (1912), due to population growth, the average allotment in Russia decreased from 4,8 (1860) to 2,6 dess. (1900). By 1905, the number of landless farms reached a huge percentage (14,9%), while the number with insufficient plots exceeded this last one (19,7%).
“Grain production per capita decreased from 25 poods in 1900-1904. up to 22 poods in 1905–1909.” The labor surplus in the countryside increased from 1900–1913. from 23 million to 32 million people.
Due to the bad climate, grain harvests in Russia fluctuated greatly from year to year. “... The ratio of the maximum yield of such an important food crop for the Russian peasantry as rye to the minimum yield in 1901-1910. amounted to 1,67 in Russia, and 1,28 in France, and 1,18 in Germany. But there were also good harvests, in 1904 and 1913 (by 18,9% and 17,1% above the norm, respectively). Good harvests were in 1899, 1902, 1909, 1910 and 1912 with yields above the norm by 10,0%, 15,3%, 15,7%, 6,4% and 7,9%, respectively.
“After the famine of 1891, covering a vast region of 29 provinces ... Samara province went hungry 8 times, Saratov 9. Over the past thirty years, the largest hunger strikes date back to 1880 (the Lower Volga region, part of the lakeside and Novorossiysk provinces) and to 1885. (Novorossia and part of the non-chernozem provinces from Kaluga to Pskov); then ... the famine of 1892 came in the central and southeastern provinces, the hunger strikes of 1897 and 98. approximately in the same area; in the 1901th century the famine of 17 in 1905 provinces of the center, south and east; (mainly eastern, central provinces, Novorossiya).
(New Encyclopedic Dictionary / F. A. Brockhaus and I. A. Efron, 1913. Stb. 41).
According to S. Nefedov: without families, most of the workers did not have apartments. About 70% of single workers and 43% of families rented a "corner". "Corner" is a bed, sometimes (when the family lives) fenced off with a curtain. Bachelors often slept right on the floor, in corridors, in the kitchen, etc. With such an economical life, about 80% of the salary was spent on food, clothing, housing, the rest was sent to the village.
As Leo Tolstoy wrote during his trip at the end of the XNUMXth century:
“In all these villages, although there is no admixture to bread, as it was in 1891, bread, although pure, is not given in plenty. Welding - millet, cabbage, potatoes, even the majority, there is none. The food consists of herbal cabbage soup, whitened if there is a cow, and unwhitened if there is none, and only bread. In all these villages, the majority have sold and pledged everything that can be sold and mortgaged.
According to the results of the first Russian census in 1897, the number of literate people was 21,1%. By 1917, already half of the inhabitants of Central Russia were literate, but in the whole country this figure did not exceed 30-35%.
To these facts must be added "financial and economic factors":
1) the gold standard contributed to a decrease in the degree of monetization (money supply) of the country and contributed to the growth of the external debt burden;
2) the government encouraged the expansion of foreign capital, which actively exported profits from the country;
3) the uncontrolled growth of external debt and the expansion of foreign capital, turned the country into a semi-colony of the West, caused an increase in external payments, which required increasing the export of bread, stimulating food crises and reducing the standard of living of the people;
4) the low efficiency of the elite, the excess level of the labor force and its cheapness led to a low level of investment in the mechanization and development of the country.
The consequences of the gold standard (the backing of the ruble with gold) caused a significant contraction of the cash supply in circulation:
“If in the middle of the XIX century. per inhabitant of Russia accounted for an average of more than 30 rubles. or 120 French francs, then by 1899 - only 10 rubles. or 25 francs... In 15 years, by 1914, there were 10 rubles per inhabitant of Russia. or 25 francs, while in Germany it was 115 francs, in the USA - 125 francs, in England - 140 francs and in France - 210 francs ... "
(S. A. Andryushin, Features of monetary circulation in Russia: the lessons of history).
According to Guryev, over 15 years, the cash ruble supply has not increased: on January 1.01.1881, 1 - 133,5 million rubles, and by January 1.01.1896, 1 - 121,3 million rubles, although over the same period the population of Russia increased by 32,8 .XNUMX million people
Over 60 years, Russia's external debt has grown from 220,8 million rubles. ser. (in 1853) to 4 million rubles. angry (in 229) or up to 1914% of the amount of public debt with a corresponding increase in annual interest payments from 48 million rubles. ser. up to 10,3 million rubles. (A. Amosov, Evolution of the monetary system of Russia, "Questions of history" No. 194, 8).
To pay off debts and maintain the exchange rate of the ruble, it was necessary to increase the export of grain and other raw materials. If in 1884-1891. the annual export of bread amounted to 408 million poods, for the period 1893-1897. - 509 million pounds, then by 1914 - 648 million pounds. (S. A. Andryushin).
So: the CR was subtly and skillfully bankrupted by the bigwigs of world capital, having lost its gold reserves.
All these problems were timely identified by the outstanding Russian economist S. F. Sharapov, whose work was in many respects ahead of his time, whose recommendations formed the basis of the monetary circulation of the USSR. The reform was also criticized by such prominent figures of that time as G. V. Butmi and A. Nechvolodov.
The outdated, feudal model of "subsistence economy" led to the crisis, when land, not industry, was the source of income. Over 76% of the active population of Russia was employed before the war in agriculture and only 10% in industry. The empire turned out to be a "colossus with feet of clay", and a catastrophic food crisis caused a revolution.
The situation was so serious, the discontent of all sections of the population was so excessive that the revolution could not fail to occur. Under specific historical conditions, the activities of subversive forces, spies, provocateurs, and revolutionaries had a solid foundation, which, under those conditions, was practically very difficult to destroy. To save the country, an extremely tough policy was needed, which the tsarist government was not capable of.
As the philosopher Vasily Rozanov wrote:
“Rus' faded away in two days, at most in three ... There was no Kingdom left, no Church left, no army left ... What was left, then? Strangely, literally nothing.”
And the same thing happened during the theatrical three-day coup of the GKChP in August 1991, when the huge colossus of the USSR collapsed, and neither the huge army nor the all-powerful KGB saved it?
Differences in living standards by region
Where does the information about the high standard of living before the revolution come from?
They lived differently, but in general the standard of living was low. According to the research of S. A. Nefedov:
“in the capital provinces ... the most prosperous sections of the population were concentrated due to the huge import of food from the provinces. The North, the North-West and Belarus… could not provide for themselves… the level of consumption here was below the national average. At the same time, differentiation among the peasants led to the fact that the level of consumption of the poorest strata was below the famine line ...
In the east, beyond the Volga ... natural conditions and soils were worse than in the Chernozem region; in the Cis-Urals, droughts were a frequent occurrence ... To the south, in Little Russia, the situation was better, per capita production reached 30 pounds ... consumption was relatively high ...
For all that ... in the then Russia there were real regions of abundance. For example, in the Samara province, state peasants had allotments on average 4,1 dess. per capita ... in the Kherson province, an average of 29 poods of bread was consumed per capita (1898) ... the regions that lacked bread ... became "fortresses of Bolshevism" in the Civil War - while the rich outlying regions supported the whites.
In the east, beyond the Volga ... natural conditions and soils were worse than in the Chernozem region; in the Cis-Urals, droughts were a frequent occurrence ... To the south, in Little Russia, the situation was better, per capita production reached 30 pounds ... consumption was relatively high ...
For all that ... in the then Russia there were real regions of abundance. For example, in the Samara province, state peasants had allotments on average 4,1 dess. per capita ... in the Kherson province, an average of 29 poods of bread was consumed per capita (1898) ... the regions that lacked bread ... became "fortresses of Bolshevism" in the Civil War - while the rich outlying regions supported the whites.
In the next photo we see a wealthy peasant family.
So why are the “reds and whites” still fighting?
So why are there still such serious battles for this "phantom" of "lost" Russia?
Why, during the liberal period, the activities of the Bolsheviks were denigrated in every possible way, reduced to repressions and sharashkas, and the activities of the unsuccessful state were exalted in every possible way. Yes, there were repressions, but that was the time. Did you make "galoshes"? And even now, the sophisticated propaganda of a number of TV channels “sells” us at the subconscious level a distorted image of the greatest state in the history of mankind and Russian civilization. Who lost the first, and who won the second world war? Who made the atomic bomb, the atomic reactor and launched Gagarin into space? And only now, on the wave of patriotism and sympathy of the population for the USSR, a reversal has appeared.
The answer is simple: this dispute is not so much about past Russia, but to a greater extent about present and future Russia. The past cannot be changed, but the future, if we are allowed to, is our choice.
But propaganda is useless - as K. Shakhnazarov said: our people are Soviet, and the government is bourgeois. According to opinion polls (September 2022), almost two-thirds of Russians (62%) sympathize with socialism, and this is the maximum in the history of polls. According to VTsIOM data at the end of 2022: almost 50% of Russians want the restoration of the USSR, and 58% of citizens regret its collapse. According to the monitoring data of the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences: about 80% of the population of the Russian Federation give a negative assessment of the scenario of "inertial" economic development, which, in their opinion, leads the country to a dead end.
Why is capitalism dangerous for Russia?
Both the history of the CR and the history of liberal reforms show that the capitalist model cannot be "grafted" onto Russia, which is, in fact, an antipode and counterbalance to the West. Capitalism is mortally dangerous for the country, both when it led us to the Civil War, and today - provoking an unprecedented civilizational crisis and the extinction of the Russian population.
One of the central reasons for the collapse of the CR is that the West deliberately enslaved, exploited and suppressed Russia until this process ended in revolution.
During the period from 1887 to 1913, the net profit of foreign capitalists on capital invested in Russia amounted to 2 million rubles, or 326% more than the invested capital (30 million rubles). As of January 1, 783, the share of foreign capital in industry was about 1%.
A. Nechvolodov quotes Taburno:
“Russia for a 20-year period from 1882–1901. paid abroad about 5.740 million rubles, or about 15 1/2 billion francs. That is, every 6 1/2 years we pay foreigners a tribute equal in magnitude to the colossal indemnity paid by France to its conqueror Germany. In the last two years (1900 and 1901) our payments to foreigners amounted annually to about 380 million rubles, and in the present 1903 this amount will be even more significant, so that in the last 5 years we will pay foreigners about 5 1/2 billion francs ... Without war, without cost, without loss of life, foreigners are more and more defeating us, every 5-6 years, inflicting on us a financial debacle equal to the defeat of France in 1870.
The West plundered the CR in the same way as other countries (adjusted for the level of development), using the mechanism of the gold standard, the debt needle, the export of resources and the purchase of assets. V. I. Lenin in his work “Imperialism, as the Highest Stage of Capitalism” called Russian capitalism “semi-colonial”.
And now, starting with the reforms of the 90s, everything is a blueprint: only instead of gold - the dollar - and instead of grain - oil and gas. And if the current liberal reforms since 1992 had a national character, we would long ago be at least (!) the third largest economy in the world after China. For liberation, a new iron curtain and a new purge of the tops are needed.
Why couldn't tsarist Russia become Germany?
According to the Norwegian economist Eric S. Reinert, Europe and the United States achieved wealth only through the development of industry, creating wealth through added value, then Germany, the USSR, Japan, South Korea and finally China repeated this path. The poverty of agricultural countries is caused by the lack of their own industry, they do not have enough purchasing power. A typical example is pre-revolutionary agrarian Russia. Every "average" citizen, in order to become a buyer, must be a producer.
Another example is Argentina. Shortly before the First World War, the country was on the same level as France and Germany in terms of per capita income. But the industry was undeveloped: almost everything was imported from abroad. At the beginning of the XNUMXth century, overproduction of grain began in the world, and the standard of living in the country fell.
Speaking about the impossibility of a "capitalist leap" scenario for the CR, P. Gregory Allen writes:
“In the 1930s. - the years of the Great Depression, when grain prices reached a minimum ... the Russian "wheat boom" ended in the same way as in Canada ... and Argentina ... The most likely scenario is that Russia drags out a miserable existence due to ... slow economic growth ... the revolution was the natural reaction of the peasantry to poverty, and in this situation the expropriation of the possessions of the nobility becomes a logical point in the political program.
The CR under the current model (as we are now) could not have carried out industrialization on a Stalinist scale. In a couple of decades, television, jet engines, atomic weapon. Russia at that time would still remain a backward agrarian state in need of modernization and industrialization.
Could she win the coming World War II?
It was swept away by fate in the form of a revolution, clearing the way for the tired people and the communists who want change.
Let us add to this that in the CR there was actually an external debt crisis, the development ended in the financial collapse of 1917. And if not for the war, then a little later.
Tsarist Russia was ruined by an inefficient ruling class
The huge problem of the CR is the efficiency of its elites, which is relevant for today. As S. A. Nefedov writes about the expenses and life of the ruling class:
“... in 1907 ... bread worth 431 million rubles was exported; instead, ... consumer goods for the upper classes were imported ... for 180 million rubles. and approximately 140 million rubles. amounted to the expenses of Russians abroad ... For comparison, in the same year, machinery and industrial equipment were imported for 40 million rubles, agricultural machinery - for 18 million rubles. (Yearbook of Russia... 1910: 191-193; Pokrovsky 1947: 383) ...Only a very small part of the income received from grain exports went to the needs of industrialization.
Is it not the same now, only cooler - yachts, real estate, a trillion dollars in accounts?
And here is the testimony of the Minister of Agriculture in 1915-1916. A. N. Naumova:
“Bread speculation, predation, bribery flourish; commissioners who supply grain make their fortunes on the phone. And against the background of complete poverty of some - the insane luxury of others. Two steps away from the convulsions of starvation - an orgy of satiety. Villages around the estates of those in power are dying out. Meanwhile, they are busy building new villas and palaces.
It would be reasonable to expect that agriculture, as the basis of the economy, should have seen the growth of advanced technologies and mechanization. In fact, the technology was extremely backward: in 1910, 7,9 million wooden plows, 3 million wooden plows, 6 million iron plows, 5,7 million wooden harrows, 15,9 million wooden harrows with iron teeth were used in agriculture, in total 400 thousand iron harrows, 811 thousand reaping machines, 27 thousand steam threshers. In 1913, there were 165 tractors [Questions of Economics. 1949. V.2. S. 56]. Of these, with oil engines - 93, all the rest - steam, all - imported. In 1916, the Russian army had 408 tractors, all imported. The existing economic policy made it impossible to intensify agriculture.
For comparison. In 1909, 2 thousand tractors were built in the USA, in 1916 the US industry produced 30 thousand, and in 1917 - about 62 thousand tractors [https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page: EB1922_-_Volume_32.djvu/765].
By 1913, the CR had approximately 9 cars; as of July 1, 1917, there were 12378 cars. In 1914, 459 cars were produced in the USA, in 155 - 1917 cars (US Automobile Production Figures - Wikipedia)
As A. Solzhenitsyn wrote:
“Russia stood for centuries - and dozed ... This is how it stands - and will stand ... it was the slumber of the entire hereditary privileged class - the nobility ... grand ducal and guards circles. This class, which had received so much from Russia over the centuries, and everything in advance, was now in the transitional tense time of the country ... just dozed, living carelessly, without active search, without sacrificial anxiety ... The ruling class lost its sense of duty ... the state consciousness most abandoned it. And in the formidable December 1916, the nobility, which ruined this power, also recoiled from it with loud denunciations.
Look at how His Beatitude Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) wrote about the state of society and, most importantly, its leaders before the revolution in 1889:
“It is no longer a people, but a rotting corpse, which considers its rotting to be life. In reality, it has no life, but only moles, worms and disgusting insects live on it and in it, which rejoice that the body is dead and smoldering, because in a living body there would be no life for them, and they could not satisfy your greed."
The biggest mistake of the autocracy is the too late abolition of serfdom and the second is the "liberation" of the peasants when their economic situation worsens due to redemption payments, as well as the preservation of corvée for the transition period. Instead of turning the ruling class of Russia into producers and investors involved in the development of the economy, the autocracy supported their dependency mood by increasing lending through the Noble Bank. Yes, there were prominent industrialists in Russia, but they did not make the weather.
The historical reason for the parasitism of the Russian elites is natural wealth - while Europe was forced to produce, it was enough for us to export. According to O. Bessonova, a model of a “distributing economy” has developed in Russia, essentially a feudal system. Its problem is that it can only be effective under the strict dictatorship that was under Peter I or Stalin. As soon as the state reduces the burden of "supervision" as under Brezhnev or in liberal times, the elite relaxes and its effectiveness falls.
As V. O. Klyuchevsky believed, Russia had historical problems of choosing between a patrimonial state, which enriched only the top, and a state of the common good, which would benefit all sections of society. Only the communists realized this choice, which was destroyed by cunning in the process of the bourgeois revenge of 1985-1992.
Conclusion: Revolution Was Inevitable
Many, including G. M. Katkov, S. P. Melgunov, Elisabeth Heresh, accuse Lenin of being a German spy and receiving funding from Germany. A number of researchers accuse England of subversive activities, some - Japan. How many films have been shown on this topic on our TV! Yes, the West destroyed and exploited Russia, as it is now through trade and finance, yes, there were agents and spies. But if the building were strong, it would stand! A very popular point of view is that the betrayal of the top of the country, the leadership of the army, led to the catastrophe, which is shown in the film "Conspiracy of the Generals".
But the philosopher Nikolai Berdyaev, who was a contemporary of the October Revolution of 1917, pointed to its true causes:
“The revolution is punishment sent down from above for the sins of the past… In the revolution the sins of the past are atoned for. A revolution always speaks of the fact that those in power have not fulfilled their purpose, that they have led to a revolution, that they have admitted its possibility. There was disease and rot in society, which made the revolution inevitable.”
Of interest are the opinions of the former leaders of the White movement (P. N. Wrangel, A. I. Denikin, A. P. Budberg), who had monarchist views and had no interest in denigrating the autocracy. A. I. Denikin:
"The revolution was inevitable, it is called nationwide ... the revolution was the result of dissatisfaction with the old government - definitely all segments of the population."
And if everything was so wonderful, why on March 9 (March 22), 1917, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church turned to the Russian people with an appeal to recognize and support the Provisional Government:
“The will of God has been done. Russia has embarked on the path of a new state life. May the Lord bless our great homeland with happiness and glory on its new path ... "
Widely publicized theories about the external causes of the revolution are essentially a way to distract society from the true causes of the revolution and maintain the legitimacy of the current liberal system. This is a social order.
As unwritten historical laws say: unreformability and lack of feedback from the people is the first sign of a future collapse. The old system was doomed by fate - therefore, in its fall there was a kind of "rock". As the deputy of the State Duma V. A. Maklakov prophesied, speaking on December 27, 1916: “It will be ... a revolution of anger and revenge ...”.
Who just did not warn Emperor Nicholas II about the impending disaster. But for changes it was necessary to move the interests of "moneybags" and listen to the advice of authoritative economists. Isn't that what is needed now? But recent events show that it is easier to get on a plane at the right time and leave.
Looking through the photos of Tsarist Russia, we often see peasants tired of life, dressed in "rag" clothes. And it is precisely then that these desperate people will, in revenge and to the bitter end, exterminate not only the upper, but also the middle strata of society. And how cruelly - in a completely barbaric way, the kulaks were dispossessed. But didn't they profit for several generations from the grief of their poorer neighbors? At the same time, the entire upper and middle stratum not only lost their property, but often their lives or their homeland - and at the same time forever.
The most terrible thing in the capitalist CR was that the bulk of the ruling class, who spoke French, wasting their lives at balls, parties and receptions, traveling abroad, did not invest the necessary efforts in the development of their country, in improving the life of their people. They lost their Christian indifference to the fate of their neighbor, the difficult situation of the working classes, but also did not understand that the state and the economy require their full participation, both according to the law of economics and the law of morality.
The elite brought the country to the extreme, and the answer of fate was not long in coming. At the same time, the Church, being under the influence of the state, could not raise the voice of the sermon and denounce for the salvation of the country this mass social fall of the ruling class, which was rushing at full speed to its terrible death in the events of the coming revolution and the bloody Civil War.
And since then, the trends have remained the same. And once the lesson of history is not learned, events may repeat themselves. It is easy to see historical parallels between the abolition of serfdom in 1861, followed by capitalist “modernization” and globalization, leading to the revolution of 1917, and the second attempt to bring Russia into the global project, which started in 1985 but was frozen during the NWO. But now everything is happening much faster.
Now two matrices are fighting in Russia: the matrix of the peripheral raw-material capitalism of the CR, controlled by the elites who use the country as a cash cow, and the matrix of the creation of the USSR, which began a countdown in 2014. And the whole world is waiting for our revival, and the Russian news that it is impossible to live under the heel of the United States anymore. The outcome of the battle is obvious, and perhaps the denouement will come before 2025.
Maybe, as in 1917 or 1991, 2 or 3 days will pass - and only painful memories will remain of the current liberal fog.
Sources:
The reign of Emperor Nicholas II in facts and figures (1894–1917).
Mironov B. N. Russian modernization and revolution. SPb., 2019.
Nefedov S. A. On the discussion about the causes of the Russian revolution and the standard of living in the late XIX - early XX centuries,
Gregory Paul. Economic growth of the Russian Empire (late XIX - early XX century): New calculations and estimates. M., 2003.
Allen, R.S., From Farm to Factory: A New Interpretation of the Soviet Industrial Revolution.
Katkov G. M. February Revolution
Maevsky I. V., "The economy of Russian industry in the conditions of the First World War", M. 1957.
Experience in calculating the national income of 50 provinces. European Russia in 1900–1913 M., 1918. S. 66.
Ostrovsky A. V. «On the degree of social stratification in pre-revolutionary Russia».
Mironov B. N. Social history of Russia. SPb., 1999, Tab. 32–33. pp. 404–405.
Onischuk S.V., Belousenko M.V., Historical types of social reproduction.
Rubakin N. A. "Russia in numbers". A country. People. Estates. Classes. The experience of statistical characterization of the estate-class composition of the population of the Russian state
Finn-Enotaevsky A. Modern economy of Russia. SPb., 1911.
Chistyakov Yu. F. Food exports of the Russian Empire in the XNUMXth and early XNUMXth centuries. And the socio-economic development of the country: lessons for modern Russia.
New Encyclopedic Dictionary / Under the general. ed. acad. K. K. Arsenyeva. T. 14. St. Petersburg: F. Brockhaus A. and Efron I. A., 1913. Stb. 41.
Tolstoy L. N. Complete works in 90 volumes, academic anniversary edition, volume 29.
Andryushin S. A. Features of money circulation in Russia: lessons of history
Guryev A. Money circulation in Russia in the 1903th century, St. Petersburg, 236, pp. 237–XNUMX.
Amosov Alexander Ilyich, Doctor of Economics, Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Evolution of the Russian Monetary System, "Questions of History" No. 8, 2003
"The Development of the Soviet Economy". M. 1940, p. 19; Bakulev GD Development of the coal industry in the Donetsk basin. M., 1955, p. 156–157.
Taburno. Draft review of the financial and economic state of Russia. Table number 19.
Naumov A. N. Cited. MK Kasvinov Twenty-three steps down. M.: Thought, 1978. S. 106.
Mamontov V. D. Russian Economy at the Turn of the XNUMXth–XNUMXth Centuries: Myths and Reality
Conspiracy of the Generals
Berdyaev, N. Philosophy of inequality / N. A. Berdyaev. - Moscow: AST Moscow: GUARDIAN, 2006. -349 [3] p.
Denikin A. I. Essays on Russian Troubles.
Information