We have nothing to be ashamed of our history. Including the history of the USSR
Izborsk club called for "red" and "white" for historical agreement
In Izborsk, the son of Gostomysl Sloven once ruled, and then he took possession of his nephew Truvor - brother Rurik. A native of Ulyanovsk (then - Simbirsk) was Karamzin who glorified the Russian Empire and the Russian state, the last Minister of the Interior of the Empire Protopopov, who tried unsuccessfully to suppress the February revolution, and also Kerensky and Lenin came from it.
The similarity of these two cities is that both of them are peculiar symbols of the transition, that is, the end of the old era and the onset of the new.
The Izborsk club established itself in the first city, and called for the agreement of the “red” and “white”, as well as recognition of the value of the USSR as a symbol of Russia's highest success and unity. stories - in the second. There is a logic.
The intention of tolerating the "red" and "white" was painfully perceived by the "black" - that is, the nationalists who love themselves more, declaring themselves "Russian" than Russia itself, which they are ready to divide into parts with those whom the Russians do not recognize. But in the club itself there were none.
Not all "white" were ready for this conversation. Not everyone ready for reconciliation and discussion of the topic saw how to reconcile. But at the same time, everyone understood that today there is more uniting in politics than there is in history. Some of them agreed to put up and even forgive the “red ones” if they repent of their fault and accept Orthodoxy, and even were ready to accept Stalin as a cult figure. But at the same time they tried to accuse Lenin of crimes, although, strictly speaking, it was he who freed the church from state subordination and guaranteed possession of the objects necessary for the implementation of services. Someone nevertheless tried to carry out a synthesis and recognize Bolshevism in the version of “national-Bolshevism”, while renouncing the “Reds” from Marx, Marxism and internationalism, but agreeing to the recognition of the role of Lenin.
The third position was the most constructive. The Platform of the Three (Chernyakhovsky, Shevchenko, Dugin) was that it is generally better to speak not about the synthesis of ideological tenets, but about a political alliance around current tasks and goals. Each preserves at the same time their ideological and value preferences, but at the same time everyone acknowledges:
- that market ideology and market organization of the economy have exhausted themselves;
- that in order to revive the economy of Russia, the active participation of the state in the economy is necessary and a very strong state is needed, expressing the interests of the majority of citizens and socially responsible to them;
- that Russia needs a technological production breakthrough, the creation of a new, informational production, in which science turns into a direct productive force, and man is freed from the role of an appendage of an organizational and production machine and becomes above it as an organizer and controller;
- that such a breakthrough is impossible to implement on a market basis: their adoption in modern conditions will inevitably put Russia in a semi-colonial subordinate position in relation to the rest of the world.
Russia must restore its territorial integrity within at least 1985 of the year, that is, the decisions of the Final Act of the Helsinki Conference on inviolability of borders must be implemented. Russia should also be returned to its areas of responsibility, as defined by the Potsdam Conference 1945 of the year. The world community should compensate Russia for the losses it suffered during the period after unilateral economic and political concessions made by it at the end of the 1980s. The principle of national sovereignty is proclaimed primary in relation to any international acts of international organizations.
Accordingly, the principle is affirmed, which says that, first of all, agreement must be sought for and in the future, and not in the past. You need to speak not about what separates, but about what unites.
This means that you need:
- Mutually refuse revenge for the past;
- refuse persecution and convictions;
- abandon attempts to stir up opposition and create an intolerable atmosphere for each other;
- to recognize for each of those who went to consent the right to their own unrestricted activity and to openly present their views, but without trying to incite intolerance towards the hostile side.
That is, it is proposed to create a kind of “union in the name of progress”, which preserves the preservation of historical memory and diversity in the past.
In general, these positions did not cause any principled objection from other participants who agreed to take as a basis the proposed consent postulates in the system of relations itself, in a certain technology and in the procedure of “ending the civil war”:
- respect for the views of the parties and the motives for the actions of representatives of each of the camps during its course;
- transfer of disputes about their historical rightness from the political-publicistic to the historical-academic sphere;
- refusal to consider both the pre-Soviet and the Soviet period as a kind of “black hole of history”;
- the creation (which was largely done already in the Soviet period) of a common heroic-mythological pantheon;
- the provision of historical honors to representatives of pre-Soviet Russia cannot be accompanied by the derogation of honors to leaders of the Soviet period;
- adopting respectfulness as a general rule of tolerance in the discussions of representatives of both traditions;
- mutual refusal of forcing humiliations and hatred in relations between the parties;
- refusal to rename geographical, transport and cultural objects; in special cases, with objects of special historical significance - the equal use of a double name;
- equal representation of ideologies and sacralized approaches of the parties in public events and the educational process;
- recognition of the equality of ideological traditions.
And if the first day of the Ulyanovsk session of the Izborsky Club was a day of fairly tough disputes, and sometimes demonstrative ritual actions, the second was the day of adopting a unified position on the creation of the Museum of the USSR as a pronounced demonstrative action, as an image of the future restoration of Russia's position in the world its economy and Eurasian integration.
The empires do not die, and the Soviet Union itself, which brought together the territory of a divided country, in this regard was called the symbol of restoration, as well as the symbol of Russia's highest power and world influence of Russia.
Both the Club members and the governor of the Ulyanovsk Region accepted an appeal to the President of the Russian Federation with a proposal to create a museum cluster dedicated to the USSR and a number of industries related to its success - from the Museum of the History of Education to the Museum of History aviation.
At the same time, the request for a positive story that was updated today was highlighted. If a country and a people exist and, in spite of everything, are far from being the last country and people in the world, then their history has nevertheless been successful. And through whatever tragedies and difficulties the country and the people went through, they, one way or another, always overcame them. And that means they have reason to be proud.
That is, the story should be the subject of positive self-identification. And the history of the USSR should be recognized as one of the most valuable and successful periods in Russian history. This does not mean that it should be reduced to an official promotional report, and it would be absurd to ignore the mistakes, difficulties and tragedies of this period. Just speaking about them, you need to tell the truth, showing both the proportion of defeats against the background of the weight of victories, and the scale of the tragic against the background of the scale of the heroic. And if during the period from 1921 to 1953 years, political repression suffered (someone - deservedly, someone - unfairly) about 4 million people - no need to be silent about what it was, but you need to honestly say that their specific all was less than 2% of the population of the country.
No need to be silent about the fact that the victims were innocent, but no need to be silent and that there were more victims for their real guilt. True - so true. And the museum of the USSR should be a museum of the Truth, which first of all consists in the fact that the USSR was the greatest of all states in the history of mankind. A state that did not “crash”, but was destroyed. And yet to say who and how.
But the main truth, in the opinion of both the “white” and “red” gathered in the homeland of the founder of the USSR, is that the people and the country have nothing to be ashamed of the history of the USSR, which is primarily a matter of pride for them. And the day of the formation of the USSR, December 30, should be recognized as a memorable festive day of modern Russia.
Great states arise where there is a request for them. And once the request is - they are returned.
The formation day of the USSR, December 30, should become a holiday in modern Russia.
If the country and the people, in spite of everything, exist, it means that their history was successful.
In Izborsk, the son of Gostomysl Sloven once ruled, and then he took possession of his nephew Truvor - brother Rurik. A native of Ulyanovsk (then - Simbirsk) was Karamzin who glorified the Russian Empire and the Russian state, the last Minister of the Interior of the Empire Protopopov, who tried unsuccessfully to suppress the February revolution, and also Kerensky and Lenin came from it.
The similarity of these two cities is that both of them are peculiar symbols of the transition, that is, the end of the old era and the onset of the new.
The Izborsk club established itself in the first city, and called for the agreement of the “red” and “white”, as well as recognition of the value of the USSR as a symbol of Russia's highest success and unity. stories - in the second. There is a logic.
The intention of tolerating the "red" and "white" was painfully perceived by the "black" - that is, the nationalists who love themselves more, declaring themselves "Russian" than Russia itself, which they are ready to divide into parts with those whom the Russians do not recognize. But in the club itself there were none.
Not all "white" were ready for this conversation. Not everyone ready for reconciliation and discussion of the topic saw how to reconcile. But at the same time, everyone understood that today there is more uniting in politics than there is in history. Some of them agreed to put up and even forgive the “red ones” if they repent of their fault and accept Orthodoxy, and even were ready to accept Stalin as a cult figure. But at the same time they tried to accuse Lenin of crimes, although, strictly speaking, it was he who freed the church from state subordination and guaranteed possession of the objects necessary for the implementation of services. Someone nevertheless tried to carry out a synthesis and recognize Bolshevism in the version of “national-Bolshevism”, while renouncing the “Reds” from Marx, Marxism and internationalism, but agreeing to the recognition of the role of Lenin.
The third position was the most constructive. The Platform of the Three (Chernyakhovsky, Shevchenko, Dugin) was that it is generally better to speak not about the synthesis of ideological tenets, but about a political alliance around current tasks and goals. Each preserves at the same time their ideological and value preferences, but at the same time everyone acknowledges:
- that market ideology and market organization of the economy have exhausted themselves;
- that in order to revive the economy of Russia, the active participation of the state in the economy is necessary and a very strong state is needed, expressing the interests of the majority of citizens and socially responsible to them;
- that Russia needs a technological production breakthrough, the creation of a new, informational production, in which science turns into a direct productive force, and man is freed from the role of an appendage of an organizational and production machine and becomes above it as an organizer and controller;
- that such a breakthrough is impossible to implement on a market basis: their adoption in modern conditions will inevitably put Russia in a semi-colonial subordinate position in relation to the rest of the world.
Russia must restore its territorial integrity within at least 1985 of the year, that is, the decisions of the Final Act of the Helsinki Conference on inviolability of borders must be implemented. Russia should also be returned to its areas of responsibility, as defined by the Potsdam Conference 1945 of the year. The world community should compensate Russia for the losses it suffered during the period after unilateral economic and political concessions made by it at the end of the 1980s. The principle of national sovereignty is proclaimed primary in relation to any international acts of international organizations.
Accordingly, the principle is affirmed, which says that, first of all, agreement must be sought for and in the future, and not in the past. You need to speak not about what separates, but about what unites.
This means that you need:
- Mutually refuse revenge for the past;
- refuse persecution and convictions;
- abandon attempts to stir up opposition and create an intolerable atmosphere for each other;
- to recognize for each of those who went to consent the right to their own unrestricted activity and to openly present their views, but without trying to incite intolerance towards the hostile side.
That is, it is proposed to create a kind of “union in the name of progress”, which preserves the preservation of historical memory and diversity in the past.
In general, these positions did not cause any principled objection from other participants who agreed to take as a basis the proposed consent postulates in the system of relations itself, in a certain technology and in the procedure of “ending the civil war”:
- respect for the views of the parties and the motives for the actions of representatives of each of the camps during its course;
- transfer of disputes about their historical rightness from the political-publicistic to the historical-academic sphere;
- refusal to consider both the pre-Soviet and the Soviet period as a kind of “black hole of history”;
- the creation (which was largely done already in the Soviet period) of a common heroic-mythological pantheon;
- the provision of historical honors to representatives of pre-Soviet Russia cannot be accompanied by the derogation of honors to leaders of the Soviet period;
- adopting respectfulness as a general rule of tolerance in the discussions of representatives of both traditions;
- mutual refusal of forcing humiliations and hatred in relations between the parties;
- refusal to rename geographical, transport and cultural objects; in special cases, with objects of special historical significance - the equal use of a double name;
- equal representation of ideologies and sacralized approaches of the parties in public events and the educational process;
- recognition of the equality of ideological traditions.
And if the first day of the Ulyanovsk session of the Izborsky Club was a day of fairly tough disputes, and sometimes demonstrative ritual actions, the second was the day of adopting a unified position on the creation of the Museum of the USSR as a pronounced demonstrative action, as an image of the future restoration of Russia's position in the world its economy and Eurasian integration.
The empires do not die, and the Soviet Union itself, which brought together the territory of a divided country, in this regard was called the symbol of restoration, as well as the symbol of Russia's highest power and world influence of Russia.
Both the Club members and the governor of the Ulyanovsk Region accepted an appeal to the President of the Russian Federation with a proposal to create a museum cluster dedicated to the USSR and a number of industries related to its success - from the Museum of the History of Education to the Museum of History aviation.
At the same time, the request for a positive story that was updated today was highlighted. If a country and a people exist and, in spite of everything, are far from being the last country and people in the world, then their history has nevertheless been successful. And through whatever tragedies and difficulties the country and the people went through, they, one way or another, always overcame them. And that means they have reason to be proud.
That is, the story should be the subject of positive self-identification. And the history of the USSR should be recognized as one of the most valuable and successful periods in Russian history. This does not mean that it should be reduced to an official promotional report, and it would be absurd to ignore the mistakes, difficulties and tragedies of this period. Just speaking about them, you need to tell the truth, showing both the proportion of defeats against the background of the weight of victories, and the scale of the tragic against the background of the scale of the heroic. And if during the period from 1921 to 1953 years, political repression suffered (someone - deservedly, someone - unfairly) about 4 million people - no need to be silent about what it was, but you need to honestly say that their specific all was less than 2% of the population of the country.
No need to be silent about the fact that the victims were innocent, but no need to be silent and that there were more victims for their real guilt. True - so true. And the museum of the USSR should be a museum of the Truth, which first of all consists in the fact that the USSR was the greatest of all states in the history of mankind. A state that did not “crash”, but was destroyed. And yet to say who and how.
But the main truth, in the opinion of both the “white” and “red” gathered in the homeland of the founder of the USSR, is that the people and the country have nothing to be ashamed of the history of the USSR, which is primarily a matter of pride for them. And the day of the formation of the USSR, December 30, should be recognized as a memorable festive day of modern Russia.
Great states arise where there is a request for them. And once the request is - they are returned.
The formation day of the USSR, December 30, should become a holiday in modern Russia.
If the country and the people, in spite of everything, exist, it means that their history was successful.
Information