On the other side of the "red" and "white." Report Izborsk club

On the other side of the "red" and "white." Report Izborsk clubThe topic of hostility and the possibility of consent of the representatives of the so-called left-wing and right-wing ideologies in modern Russia itself is causing fierce disputes. In this regard, we would like to emphasize that the reports we submit are not so much the reports of the Izbor Club, but rather the reports of the Izbor Club, that is, the developments prepared by a certain group of experts. The authors of the report offer his club as a possible vision of the necessary decisions and meanings.

The main authors of the report: V. Averyanov (compiler), S. Batchikov, A. Eliseev, V. Karpets, M. Medovarov, A. Prokhanov, K. Cheremnykh. Also among the experts who contributed to the preparation of the report, the following should be mentioned: S. Belkin, Deacon Vladimir Vasilik, A. Nagorny, A. Fomenko.


1. "Red" and "white": instructions for reconciliation

The Izborsk club has the mission to become something like the headquarters of the patriotic forces of modern Russia. And one of the starting points outlining the space of necessary, vital decisions for the revival of our people, we see the beginning of the process of reconciliation, the union of those patriotic statesmen, nationally oriented social forces who for one reason or another are in a state of at least mutual misunderstanding, but as the maximum periodically flare up and fading cold "civil war."

An in-depth look at this problem can be seen that behind it is a completely different problem, which is not just an internal Russian affair. This problem is Russia's involvement for several centuries in the difficult, exhausting and dangerous struggle of civilizations, which for our people was often filled with risks of losing themselves. Russia at least two-thirds of its historical time was in a state of war (according to historian LM Sukhotin, from XIV to XX century, the country fought 329 years, according to other calculations, during the XVIII and XIX centuries, 128 of the world fell on 72 years of war) . As for the XX century, then, according to V.M. Falin, our country has not known a single peaceful hour, all decisions were made "under the gun and outside pressure, often in an atmosphere of blackmail and direct threats."

In the second half of the 20th century, under the conditions of the “Yalta peace”, our state became the guarantor of a long period of global truce, under the guise of which the fierce and no less exhausting than the wars of the past, the “cold war” with the West hid. The confrontation of civilizations by the end of the 20th century led to our defeat. It was not a defeat in the "cold war" as such, not in a war of economies or armaments, but in a war of newest organizational technologies, in which we were not up to par with our opponents. The root of this defeat should be sought in our penchant for internal discord, in exaggerating the contradictions between our relatives and minimizing the danger of an external enemy. As a result, we (in the face of the Gorbachev-Yakovlev government and the then elites) did not lose the war in the proper sense of the word, but dissolved themselves as a subject stories, capitulated as an independent civilization, "opened" to the so-called global world. And until now, the restoration of our subjectivity remains a difficult and not fully resolved problem for the government and society.

Based on the foregoing, the main criterion of belonging to Russian patriots, in our opinion, is - on top of the quarrels of red and white, on top of the dispute of revolutionaries and reactionaries, progressives and conservatives, utopians and traditionalists - the criterion of the struggle of civilizations, in which Russia did not cease to participate in all political modes. The one who stands for Russia is ours, regardless of its ideological coloring and party origin. Anyone who questions Russia as it is, revealing itself at several levels of historical development (including the preordynian "Russian antiquity", old Moscow, St. Petersburg and Soviet periods), wants to perekorchevat it in favor of their passions, Westernism or internationalism, racism or cosmopolitanism, liberalism or to leftism — that is our adversary, no matter how spiritualized “white” or fiery “red” he may appear.

The struggle of civilizations is a struggle of senses, a struggle of the ideals of the meaning of life, updated at each historical stage, but at the same time bearing the traditional traditions of a particular culture. The victory of one civilization over another is the victory of one meaning of life over another, when the winner forces not only to lay down weapon, but also to recognize that he lives better and more correctly defeated. It is this issue that is at the center of the revolutions and unrest that occur in non-Western societies. (The question of changing the principles of the meaning of life in the West itself is somewhat more complicated, and we will not dwell on it now. At the same time, we will make a reservation that the modern West is the result of the victory of the new European project over the old European, the victory of post-Christianity and post-humanism, demanding to recognize their superiority over the old world over the old Christian civilization.).

Based on this optics, and not at all from the optics of the fratricidal Civil War, we propose to look at the notorious “red-white” theme. See and understand whether we can today enter into a strategic alliance with each other. Are we, patriots, able to combine the ideal of social justice with the values ​​of traditionalism - to direct these two beginnings of our history, these two most powerful streams of our national energy not into a “brother-to-brother” struggle, but into a single channel - the channel of the development of Russian statehood and political culture.

We are confident that such a union of Soviet patriots (conditionally "red") and traditionalist patriots (conditionally "white") is possible and, in the end, will take place. We want to draw attention to the fact that the "red" and "white", "left" and "right", "monarchical" and "socialist" all these principles are inextricably linked in the Russian experience of state-building. The Russian Empire was, in many ways, a socialist state, and the Soviet Union can be considered a red autocracy.

When Russia restores itself after the Time of Troubles, moves from ruin to growth and development - white begins to sprout through red, through red - begin to sprout. These principles can be incompatible only in the era of the Troubles and the self-destruction of the people. So, if in 1919, the red and the white beginning seemed incompatible (and indeed they were), then in 1945 for the majority of the people they are indissoluble. How such a paradox is possible - we will try to explain in our report.

We consider it necessary to recognize that the Soviet Union inherited the Russian Empire not only geopolitically - in terms of preserving the “Big Space”. The Red Empire continued the political and economic tradition of the White Empire. This tradition, no doubt, was state-socialist, only in pre-revolutionary Russia it was "infected" with liberal-bourgeois influences, and in post-revolutionary Russia it was left-radical influences. Later, in 60-80-s, history seemed to repeat itself, and liberal dissidence, appealing to Western European values, which it gave out to be “universal”, began to undermine our power for the second time in the 20th century. The cleansing of the Russian state tradition of liberalism and nihilism is the most important guarantee of strengthening Russia and overcoming the tragic hostility between the "red" and "white".

The essence of our approach can be reduced to several points:

1. Using the concepts of "white" and "red" in the optics of the Civil War would make the very question that we propose extremely vulnerable. Today it is becoming increasingly clear that the picture of the Civil War itself is much more complicated than it was painted by both Soviet and anti-Soviet propaganda and historiography. In the struggle of civilizations, in the struggle against historical Russia, the stake was made by external enemies both on the white force (the fendists, their heirs, the leaders of the "volunteer army") and on the red (the Bolsheviks), and at the same time. Today, in the understanding of many, whites are primarily liberals, the Constituent Assembly, "democracy", loyalty to the Entente, dependence on intervention and foreign patronage. At the same time, during the Civil War, on the flank opposing the Bolsheviks, very soon not only the Cadets and Republicans, but also the Social Revolutionaries with the Mensheviks [1] appeared. One way or another, it should not be about the opposition of the forces of revolution and the forces of restoring the pre-revolutionary order, but the opposition between supporters of different directions of the revolutionary, “liberating” movement, fueled and instigated from abroad.


2. After a brief and unnatural syncopation of February 17, Russian history slowly turned — with different motivations and ideological rationales — into traditional ways. The path to this turn lay through fratricidal war and class terror. The red tradition of state-building came as early as the next wave, as a difficult and painful Stalinist synthesis, when radicalism began to go away when the people were outliving the wounds and diseases of the Time of Troubles and the Civil War. But the struggle of civilizations did not end there - and the February attempt was repeated after 74. Now our enemies and internal traitors have assured themselves that this time the Russian civilization has been defeated about this by the “foreman of perestroika” and the main operator of the traitorous ideological game A.N. Yakovlev spoke as about "breaking the millennial Russian paradigm": "For the first time in a millennium, they undertook democratic transformations. Century habits are breaking, the earth's crust has spread."

3. The destruction of the USSR - the second act of the "red-white" drama. This time the destroyers used the symbols of the “white army” and directly declared themselves heirs and successors to the February revolution (but not the Russian empire!). They used the “white” color first of all to emphasize their anti-Soviet pathos, the pathos of the struggle against the CPSU as a state-forming structure at that time. The "red" side acted as a defender. At this historical moment, it became more than ever clear that a great deal unites the USSR and the Russian Empire, that these are two steps in the development of our great civilization. This became especially obvious after 1988, when the Millennium of the Baptism of Russia was widely celebrated, and the rebirth of Orthodoxy that inspired great hopes began. It would seem that we saw a glimpse of the new Russia, the "Fifth Empire", the transition to which could take place without the Troubles, without strain, without falling into the abyss. But this happy transition was again thwarted by the Liberal Democrats, inflamed with hatred of the whole of Soviet, and also, as is now clear, of the whole imperial experience of Russia.

4. Until now, no one has ever given a moral assessment of what happened, which would have come not from the "winners" or the "defeated", not from the "red" or "white", but from the people who overcame this split and realized both the common tragedy and and common high goals. The former "red" disappeared without repentance. History has not given them that chance. The former "whites" also went to other worlds, taking their offenses and forgiveness with them. And nowadays, instead of reconciliation, the formerly expropriated, but then somehow "cleansed" in the furnace of "nationwide" property was seized and appropriated by people who were not burdened by any morality at all, not driven by any social ideas, but engulfed in devilish greed. It entered world history under the names "perestroika" and "privatization." Thus, instead of healing and consolation, another moral wound was superimposed on the other. This is the essence of the Third Time of Troubles, which we and our children will have to get rid of.

5. Two traditions of statehood: the tradition of the Russian tsars, the gatherers of the empire, and the tradition of Soviet civilizational construction require today creative thinking and synthesis. And for one, and for another tradition, the shrine is the sovereignty of the state. But their present revival today is possible only in a new tradition (a new one, but a tradition!) That needs to be built. In other words, in this tradition the eternal essence of the Russian tradition must be fully manifested. This third myth (the third in relation to the "red" and "white" myths that inspired the Russian people in the XX century) will be the new platform of unity in the XXI century - Alexander the Fifth Empire, the Fifth Project, predicted in the Russian doctrine in its sketch of four projects of Russian history. It is in the thought of the "Fifth Empire," and not in the ideologems and wars of the past, that the clue and meaning of the reconciliation of all true patriots lies.

Among the priority measures that the state could take today for the speediest healing of a split in our society, we would call the following (the list is not exhaustive):

- the formation of a single canonical "plot" of national history, reflected in official school textbooks;

- creation of a single, integrating value of the pre-Soviet and Soviet periods, the pantheon of heroes and prominent figures of the country;

- creation and maintenance of a system of memorials and the cult of memory of the Patriotic War 1812, the Patriotic War 1914-1917, the Great Patriotic War, as well as, to the extent possible, other significant events of our history;

- the introduction of severe punishment for insulting the historical memory of the people, including interpretations of the pre-revolutionary and Soviet history, indiscriminately defaming these historical eras;

- The adoption of the law on the automatic acquisition of citizenship of the Russian Federation by right of origin by descendants of Russian émigrés, as well as by former citizens of the USSR who wish Russian citizenship;

- granting the Russian people the status of state-forming in Russia, and all Belarusians and Ukrainians, including non-Russian citizens, the status of members of the Russian people.

2. "Right-left" game against Russia

In the struggle of civilizations, the strategy of the West can be succinctly described as sowing internal strife, striving to weaken and, ultimately, dismember Russia - first as a multinational empire, and then the Russian people themselves. Proof of this strategy is more than enough. The reasons for the strategy are also clear.

In November 1919, British Prime Minister Lloyd George, speaking in parliament, said: “Take the Baltic States ... Then Finland ... Poland ... The Caucasus ... Georgia, Azerbaijan, Russian Armenians. In addition, there are Kolchak and Petlyura all these are anti-Bolshevik forces. Why aren't they uniting? Why can't we unite them? Yes, because their goals are fundamentally incompatible. Denikin and Kolchak fight to achieve two goals. The first is the destruction of Bolshevism and the restoration of normal government in Russia In the name of this they are able to find a common language with all forces, but their second goal is the struggle for the restoration of a united Russia. So, it’s not for me to tell you whether such a policy meets the interests of the British Empire. We had a great statesman ... Lord Beaconsfield, who argued that a huge, gigantic, colossal, growing Russia, like a glacier inexorably moving towards Persia and towards the borders of Afghanistan and India, represents the greatest threat for the British Empire that one can imagine. "

The same program is clearly set out in the instructions of the US delegation at the Versailles Conference of 1919, which requires the "democratic reorganization" of Russia with the division of Finland, the Baltic States, Belarus, Poland, Ukraine, the Caucasus, the Central Asian republics, Siberia, and the Far East.

The same plans were being hatched by Hitler, while the most far-sighted of the Nazi strategists (in particular, Walter Schellenberg) thought not only about how to dismember the USSR, but also about how to educate local elites and governments who did not would allow a return to Russian reunification.

At the beginning of the 90-s, all these plans for the union imperial space began to be realized. The minimum program of the Provisional Government for the separation of Ukraine, Belarus and the Caucasus, which could not be implemented after February 1917, was carried out with a significant excess. However, what happened to our country in 1991 year is not enough for our civilizational opponents. The information-psychological war against Russia continues to this day, as already mentioned in the first reports of the Izborsk club.

In the "red-white" confrontation, the purpose of which was aimed at weakening and further dismembering the country, the "third party" acted as a catalyst and beneficiary (by Herzen's words) was not identical to either Westernizers or Slavophiles, but manipulated both poles. At the same time, the “third party” used the energy of anarchist rebel, the dedication of student-terrorists, the administrative resource of liberals affected by Russophobia and retirement, and “Christian Democratic” tendencies within the dominant Church, including among the episcopate. The financial resource of Jewish businessmen (not only major bankers, but also modest smugglers [2]) was used, as well as the capital of some Old Believers who perceived the "small herd" psychology in a hostile environment and, as the modern technologies of information wars would say, "vulnerable" community inside the "target country". In the center of this complex game that the Western world is playing in other cultural communities and other civilizations, there are a kind of right-left chameleons who grow up in their countries as a cosmopolitan alter-elite. At the same time, these chameleons can formally belong to any party, be on any political flank, play the role of agents, introduced into all significant political structures and capable, when the hour X comes, to manipulate these structures.

Lyndon LaRouche defined this tactic with the term “right-left game”, drawing attention to London’s application of this stereotype to the most diverse societies — from European empires to the Third World, in the examples of Kenya and Rwanda. LaRouche, and before him also Georgetown University professor Carol Quigley (both of them systematically studied British politics), noted its main feature is the continuity of imperial strategies inherited in aristocratic families. Evidence of this continuity was the Second World War, the Third Russian Troubles, and the current crisis of Europe, the whole burden of which rests on Germany. In turn, they called the ultimate cynicism, implicated, firstly, on the axiom of racial superiority, and, secondly, on the traditions of trade manipulations borrowed from Venice. (The generic ties of the British and "Venetian" elites are also important for understanding this.)

The geopolitical rival, who set the goal of preventing the empire from strengthening, succeeds in disrupting its leadership plans, when at the same time it is possible, firstly, to prevent an undesirable alliance with partner states, and secondly, to create for the empire internal obstacles to its flourishing, such as:

- political disharmony, activization of the protest potential of social or ethnocultural groups, lured by myths about their importance, undervalued in the empire, and, accordingly, disadvantaged;

- to discredit the authorities, primarily through the tools of the mass media (and in our era also network technologies);

- discord between different groups of the establishment, etc. etc.

Let us give a number of examples testifying to such a “right-left” game. During the First World War, the press alternates the revelations of the military and diplomats with gossip about "rasputin". The source of insinuations is easy to determine. However, in March 1915, Minister Sazonov presents ambassadors Buchanan and Palaeologus with a memorandum in which Russia's claims to Constantinople and the Dardanelles are openly declared. All rival powers play four hands under the table, tugging at the internal strings, but Russia wants to play nobly in a knightly manner. The ambassadors of the "brothers" on the Entente assure Prime Minister Sturmer that their powers will have no objections. But at this particular time, according to historian Elizabeth Heresh, the money for the Russian revolution begins to flow through Alexander Parvus not only from Germany and Austria, as before, but also from Anglo-American sources. In the press, the bacchanalia rises, which ends with the physical elimination of Rasputin [3]. Various lodges manipulate the Russian aristocracy, including grand-ducal families, and the Great East lodge is preparing new cadres for the Provisional Government. By this time, the elite is crushing and splitting up - in palaces and in offices - to such an extent that it is impossible to talk about two sides of the struggle: there are many parties. But the British and US embassies have their finger on the pulse, as can be seen even in the careful memoirs of Bruce Lockhart. His agent, Sydney Reilly, is in contact with the headquarters of Edward House, with Veniamin Sverdlov, and with gun magnate Basil Zakharov, whose partner is Parvus. Both the first and the second, "reserve" composition of the Provisional Government [4] are predetermined. There was also a "War Lodge", through the efforts of which the top leadership of the army was involved in an anti-monarchist conspiracy. There were quite a few representatives of right-wing, nationalist forces among the participants in the military conspiracy - they insisted on crushing the “German party” in power, the party that, in their opinion, had poisoned Russia for two hundred years. According to the testimony of the Ambassador of France, Maurice Palaeologus, the "German Party" was associated in these circles with the empress, Rasputin, Vyrubova, and the leader. Princess Elizabeth Feodorovna. However, the opposition of the so-called "German party", as a rule, meant for these "nationalists" an orientation toward France or England, republicanism or atlantism.

In the 80-ies of the 20th century, the right-left game, which had the ultimate goal of the disintegration of the Union State, manifested itself in the skillful deepening of the split of the intelligentsia into “left” Western liberals and right-wing soil scientists. The source of the ideological game consisted of several elements, but one of them was undoubtedly the Soviet Cultural Foundation, at which the Heritage magazine was published at the expense of Robert Maxwell. The publisher is an active participant in Anglo-Soviet diplomacy, that “strategic alliance” of Gorbachev and Thatcher, who served as a start for dismantling the entire Second (socialist) world. Maxwell's biographers believe that he played a key role in spurring the war between Iran and Iraq in the early 1980s. Another source of super-profits for the "socialist" and Maxwell's agent of three intelligence services was the supply of technology to the USSR, bypassing the limitations of COCOM, and the third, largest business was the restructuring itself.

Russian Civil War in 1918-1921 was undoubtedly a terrible disaster. Total losses amounted to more than 10 million people, while the loss of those killed and dead from injuries is no less than 2,5 million people. And at the same time, this war was nevertheless close to regular. We see irregular wars today in a vast area — from Afghanistan, where there is no railway until now, to Syria, where at least four sides are at war. Such wars do not inform, but suck energy, senses and identity - they become incessant turmoil. The regularity of the Civil War in Russia itself marked the horizon of the completion of the Second Troubles (its culmination, that is, the maximum entropy, occurred in the 1915-17 years).

3. Between Scylla of liberalism and Charybdis of leftism

Anticipating all sorts of perplexities, we would like to dwell on the very interpretation of the concepts "white" and "red." As we have already noted, for us these concepts are not reducible to the terminology of the Civil War. So, we do not consider “white” as belonging only to the “white army”, “white resistance” to the Bolsheviks. Moreover, here you can even talk about the usurpation of white as one of the symbols of the White Empire of the Russian autocrats by the forces that destroyed this empire. Similarly, for us, the “red tradition”, embodied in the popular structure of the Soviet Union, in the great victory of 1945 of the year and the achievements of the Soviet superpower suffered by our people has nothing to do with “leftism” [5], with red radicalism that was not aimed at the development of our civilization, and its use in a dubious historical adventure.

Published new data on the events of the Civil War are already gradually forming a picture that does not fit into either the “white” or the “red apologetics”. It is well known that the white movement from the very beginning was, if not radically anti-monarchical, then at least predominantly republican, defending the slogans and ideals of “people's freedom”, proclaimed in February 1917, in spirit and sense. In July, 1918, Count F.A. Keller addressed letters to generals Denikin and Alekseev with the words: “Announce that you are going for the legitimate Sovereign, and if he really is not in the world, then for the legitimate His heir, and for you, without hesitation, all the best that is left Russia and all the people who are suffering from hard power. " However, this and other similar appeals not only did not meet with sympathy from the leaders of the movement, but also resolutely rejected.

Yaroslavsky researcher S.V. Kholyaev says the following about this: “The White movement is organically linked with the 1917 days of August, which went down in history as the“ Kornilov revolt. ”However, those who subsequently entered the headquarters of the Volunteer movement, in one way or another, showed political aspirations long before February, sympathizing with the conspiracy organized by AI Guchkov from the end of 1916, and AM Krymov even entered the circle of conspirators "(" Could white be monarchists? "// Power 2011 No. 7 ). The official slogan of the so-called. "non-decision" was put forward only in order not to repel monarchical-minded officers. “If the White Guards had guessed to throw out the slogan“ Kulak Tsar ”, we would not have been able to keep even two weeks,” admitted Trotsky. Solonevich also wrote about this in his work The People’s Monarchy.

At the same time, the main opponents of the restoration of the traditional order were not even the white generals, but the Western "allies." "None of us had the slightest desire to restore tsarism in Russia ...", said US President Woodrow Wilson. And the Russian political meeting created in Paris at the beginning of 1919 (chaired by Prince Lvov, the first head of the Provisional Government), which played the role of representing the White armies who collaborated with the Entente, constantly demanded that white generals proclaim “deeply democratic objectives pursued Russian anti-Bolshevik movement. " In general, the white movement can be called left-liberal. This was clearly defined by General Ya.A. Slashchev, who said that it was a “mixture of cadet and octopus upper classes and Menshevik-socialist lower classes” [6].

A tough assessment of the white movement is given by such an informed analyst as V. M. Falin: “I consider it necessary to disclose the concept of“ civil war. ”If you strictly adhere to the facts, all the facts and only the facts, then probably you would have to admit that as such a civil war in Soviet Russia at first there wasn’t. Just as there was no civil war in Spain in 1936-1939 and just as what we see today in Africa, in the Near and Middle East. 350-360 thousand invaders. They gathered in the second polo 1918's fault was to add about another 600 thousand bayonets. The French particularly insisted on expanding external intervention. However, upon mature reflection, Wilson spoke out and doubted Lloyd George.

That's when they began to cherish Kolchak and others. The admiral called himself an American conquistador. Who was Kolchak in reality? Information about the October coup caught him in the United States. Kolchak decided not to return to Russia and filed an application for enrollment in the British navy. A mentor from Albion thought that the admiral would come in handy in another field "(" The West and Russia in the 20th Century: The Link of Times ").

This, of course, is the personal point of view of V. M. Falina. But the Grand Duke Alexander Mikhailovich Romanov confirms it in his own way, who so revealed the monstrous perversion that occurred during the Civil War: "Inspired by Sir Heinrich Deterding, or simply following the old Disraeli-Beaconsfield program, the British Foreign Ministry found a bold intent to inflict death on Russia blow ... They hoped to kill the Bolsheviks with one blow, and the possibility of a revival of a strong Russia. The position of the leaders of the White movement became impossible. Pretending that they did not notice and Ntrig of the Allies, they called ... for a holy struggle against the Soviets ... Nobody argues, the Soviets killed three of my brothers, but they also saved Russia from the fate of a vassal of allies. (...) If what you loved in Russia was reduced only to your family , then you can never forgive the Soviets, but if you are destined to live your life, like I wanted to save the empire, whether under the current banner or under the red flag of the victorious revolution, then why waver? Why not find enough courage in yourself and not recognize the achievements of those who replaced you? "(The Book of Memories, written in 1933).

Below in our report we will touch on the fact that many monarchists and supporters of right-wing movements, seeing how the situation unfolds, chose to support the Bolsheviks against the "white" (that is, "fevralist"). This seemingly absurd and paradoxical fact would seem not so absurd, given that the right knew well who the leaders of the white movement were and who was behind them. After all, the world of the Russian educated elite was cramped, and information about past Masonic connections and hobbies, dependence on the interventionists, contracts with foreign powers and credit contracts that were signed by the “white” ones, did not remain a secret.

At the same time, speaking of the usurpation of white symbolism by the White Guard commanders and ideologues, one cannot ignore the fact that in the mass of this movement there were a lot of dedicated and sincere people who did not see themselves as either puppet Entente (or Germany), or as representatives of the old fighting for their class interest. Hundreds of thousands of officers, cadets, Cossacks, peasants went into the volunteer army and died on the battlefields of their homeland. The white movement confessor, Metropolitan Veniamin (Fedchenkov), a man of amazing fate, convincingly wrote about this in his memoirs. He left Russia in 1920 and returned to 1948 in the USSR to serve there in the Church until his death. “In the White Army and a great spirit of sacrifice, not for self-interest, not even for property, but for the Motherland, for Russia in general,” the metropolitan recalled. “Whoever doesn’t accept this explanation cannot understand the“ white movement ”! The Bolsheviks seemed to be the destroyers of Russia And an honest Russian needed to fight against them! History knows how readily people gave themselves to wounds and death "(" At the turn of two epochs ").

However, the pro-Western roots of the “white movement” were also obvious to many. In the words of Svyatoslav Rybas, during the Civil War "the tragic panorama was revealed - on the one hand, world revolutionaries, on the other - western mercenaries, and there was no place for patriots" ("Stalin").

As for the red symbolism of the Bolsheviks, in this matter they were consistent Westerners - taking the banner of the Jacobins and revolutionaries of the XIX century. According to Archimandrite Konstantin (Zaitsev), expressed in his book "The Miracle of Russian History", the fact that the red flag appeared during the unrest during the "peasant reform" of 1861 of the year "cannot be explained by the internal causes of popular life." It was introduced into the peasant masses by revolutionary-minded intellectuals. This is undoubtedly the case. Just as something else is undoubted: the red banners, traditional in Russia, known since ancient times, and which overshadowed the troops of Dmitry Donskoy on Kulikovo Field, were not perceived by the Russian people as something alien. The “red tradition” during the reincarnation of Bolshevism into Stalinism, as well as the color of the Soviet flag, was superimposed on the “Red Easter” and even more ancient folk archetypes, even in the pre-Christian era [7].

Revolutionaries made it so that the “red” symbolism began to be perceived in Russia inseparably from the idea of ​​social justice. However, the “red” beginning understood in this way was strongly present in the Russian Empire. The possibility of its full implementation by the hands of the Russian tsar was systematically disrupted by Russian liberals and radical nihilists of all stripes, and even more by the oligarchic elite, behind which Anglo-Saxon conductors loomed. This “fifth column” shook the Romanov empire in much the same way as in the twentieth century its successor in the liberal and Westernist stratum within the Soviet nomenklatura shook the Soviet system.

If we look at the prehistory of 1917 of the year, we will see: liberalism and nihilism in Russia were connected by deep internal communication, speaking as two parties in opposition to the traditional way. Already the so-called "people of the forties" for the most part openly wanted the defeat of Russia in the Crimean War, hoping for the collapse of the "Nikolaev regime." The notes of state and national treason clearly sounded during the Polish uprisings of 1830 and 1863, when many Russian nobles with centuries-old ancestry supported the Poles and became in opposition not only to their sovereign, but also to their people.

However, the “aristocratic opposition” of 1860 – 70 –– land magnates embittered by the tsar because of the abolition of serfdom and demanding the transfer of power in their hands as “compensation” became the real engine of nihilism and liberalism in Russia. These "aristocrats from the Yacht Club" preached the development of "wild" capitalism, the free purchase and sale of land, the destruction of the peasant community, without hiding their contempt for the "uncivilized" Russian people. The main ideas of the "aristocratic opposition" in the era of reforms were shared by many ministers and even members of the dynasty, who reached out to declare open sympathy for the rebellious Polish gentry.

It is significant that in the 60 of the 19th century an influential group of constitutionalists formed in Russia, dreaming of establishing a monarchy in Russia according to the English model. And it was headed by the feudalists who were dissatisfied with the reform. The patron of this group was the most powerful chief of gendarmes, Count PA Shuvalov. They had their own mouthpiece - the newspaper "News". In addition, there was the Society of mutual land loan, which implicitly set a goal to finance the constitutional party. This party did not doubt its power and that they would sooner or later rule Russia, whereas the nihilist radicals were viewed by them as their “younger brothers”, against which they may appear to be a kind of “Russian Tori”, conservatives. The newly formed legal profession and in general the "legal profession" were financially interested in revolutionaries, since profited from their defense, and the revolutionaries, for their part, were interested in the development of the "legal profession."

However, there were genuine conservatives in Russia opposing the creeping oligarchic revolution. Including the efforts of these genuine conservatives, whom the liberals contemptuously named "red" (!), Their draft constitution collapsed, the peasant community was preserved, the power of the Polish gentry was broken, and its lands were given to the peasants. “The tragedy of the White Guard” - so the Polish nationalist historians call the results of the measures taken by the “red”, in their view, Romanov dynasty. "Red" - in their mouths sounds almost like "Asian". Consecutive Westerners-Russophobes like Count PA Valuev was horrified by the process of "asiaticization" of Russia in the 70 and especially 80 of the XIX century. In fact, there was no "asiization". Russia simply shook off the superficial and revealed its essence - the essence of the monarchy of the White Tsar, who embodies the "red" social justice, reaching his people "over the heads" of the oligarchy, as almost all of the Romanovs did at certain historical moments, as more "conservative" "and more" liberal ".

And it was not an accident, it was not even a single brilliant insight that Konstantin Leontyev in the last years of his life expressed the dream of the Russian tsar, who would become the head of the "socialist movement." Nor was it an accident that, independently of Leontiev, the draft of the enslavement of all classes without exception and the transformation of the Russian empire into a mobilization state was expressed at the end of the 1890-s by Nikolai Fedorov.

By 1881, some liberal newspapers were already firmly in positions of poorly concealed Russophobia - this manifested itself from month to month, from year to year in every reaction of the liberal press to any government decree, to any sensational criminal case. At the same time, the activity of radical nihilists and subversors in public opinion was issued as holy sacrificial asceticism. And in this a great role was played by the liberals, who strongly supported this substitution.

In the famous passage from "Fallen Leaves" Vasily Rozanov writes that for such as him, the young provincials of 70's and 80's, the metropolitan "nihilism" seemed to be the fruit of the activity of the "poor student", but upon closer examination it turned out that This nihilism operates in conjunction with the mysterious patrons. Hence, material welfare and even wealth of such figures as millionaire Stasyulevich with his own stone house on Galernaya Street, literary tycoon Blagosvetlov, striking in comparison with poverty and misery of conservative publicists, literary magnate Blagosvetlov, who led into the office with an ebony door with gold inlay, in front of which stood a servant "Negro", Panteleev, in whose palazzo Herzen Society gathered, etc. “I understood where the trough is and where the pigs are, and where there is a crown of thorns, and nails, and flour.” Vasily Vasilyevich writes. “Then this idiotic censorship, like acid, consumes“ Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality ”from the books; About the monarchy, "in parallel with the patronage of the Social-Democratic" Cause "," Russian riches ", etc. I suddenly came to my senses and realized that in Russia there was" reveling and deceit ", that there was a left" oprichnina "in it, which took possession of all of Russia and splashing vitriol in the face of anyone who does not join "opposition to salmon", to "opposition with champagne", to "the opposition with Kutler on the 6-ti thousandth pension" ...

The 1905 revolution, marked by the pilgrimage of the leaders of the Russian intelligentsia to the West and the open support of Japan in the war with Russia, exposed the ugly essence of this nihilism, with its subservience to foreign culture and denial of its own state symbols, ministers of order, temples ... The beginning of the 20th century was a time when the figure of "the freedom fighter of Russia", openly in contact with the governments of the states hostile to Russia, became the rule from a single exception.

However, the country as a whole did not sympathize with such nihilism and secretly supporting liberalism. Russia stubbornly refused to touch the very essence of Western capitalism. It is significant that industrialization in Russia took place against the background of a rather insignificant proletarianization of the peasantry. The working class of Russia accounted for about 10% of the population, but Russia was in fifth place in terms of industry development - and in first place in terms of its pace. The Russian Empire was not a "normal European" country, although various kinds of plutocrats moved it in that direction. Meanwhile, in the West, the high rates of industry growth were due to the ruin of the majority of the peasants and the proletarianization of the peasantry itself. In Russia, on the other hand, it was possible to avoid proletarianization on a large scale. A strong Russian community "supplied" to the cities a small part of its members, who simply did not want to engage in agricultural labor. And it so happened that their energy was enough for the successful industrialization of our country.

In the struggle against sovereign power, the liberals desperately needed the creation of a "responsible ministry". They were eager to put the government and Tsar Nicholas II under the control of the parliament (Duma), making the government completely dependent on the plutocracy. The sovereign stubbornly opposed these attempts, which, by the way, speaks of his uncommon political will. Had the king been a “rag,” as many of his ill-wishers claim, he would have agreed with relief to the “responsible ministry” and would have sat serenely on the throne — “reigning but not ruling.” However, he chose a completely different, difficult and dangerous way: keeping the autocracy from the harassment of the international oligarchy [8].

For comparison: in then Germany, the monarch was under the tutelage of large capital, bringing the magnates of industry, banking and commerce closer to him. The Russian Tsar, though he made some economic concessions to big capital, preferred to keep his distance. After the introduction of the "responsible ministry," the monarchy would cease to be autocratic, and would become a parliamentary one (which was completely convenient for the West). But this did not happen: the emperor, who was provoked to enter the world war, mobilized a colossal army, which, despite the parasitism of the financial oligarchy, continued to attack and the Russian empire had to be broken by the whole arsenal of anti-system forces. At the same time, the so-called allies did not care how much blood would be shed: the priority was the destruction of a competitor. George V had the opportunity to save his cousin Nicholas II, but did not, although he had previously sworn friendship and loyalty. Lloyd George explained this betrayal with straightforward text: "The king is a symbol of a united, powerful Russia, we promised to transfer the straits to Constantinople, and it would be the height of insanity to accept him in Britain ...".

While the liberals carried out a coup d'état during the war in order to “change the driver,” as they expressed it, the moderate socialists demanded “a world without annexations and indemnities,” that is, they simply wanted to make all the Russian victims of the war in vain, the historical verdict was already signed by The overthrow of the emperor knocked the ground out from under the feet of not only the Februarylists, but also the whole of Russia with republican plans. The "red" peasant masses poured from the abyss and dared the world that contradicted the whole historical path of Russia, which the Guchkovs and Kerenskys dreamed of, now being thrown abroad.

In emigration, many Februaryists repented of previous activities. This repentance took on a sharp form from Peter Struve and Vasily Maklakov, who in fact cursed their pre-revolutionary activity in overthrowing the monarchy. Even Kerensky finally made the point that now he would like to see Russia return to the regime of Alexander III. True, all these remorse was clearly belated and not always complete ...

A more successful game was the "fifth column" at the end of 80-x - the beginning of 90-s. To understand the nature of the victory of the forces of the anti-system in the Third Troubles it is necessary to understand its origin. Contrary to the widespread notion that a new liberal and anarchic-nihilistic dissent, called "dissidence", was born among the repressed, the most authoritative and prolific intellectuals of these trends came out of the overcoat of the Soviet establishment from the humanitarian and technical academics.

The first stimulus to the emergence of dissidence in the USSR was the political and personal conflict between Joseph Stalin and Josip Broz Tito. The books of Milovan Dzhilas and Abdurakhman Avtorkhanov, natives of the Yugoslav and Soviet party intelligentsia, are naturally becoming the reference books of the future opposition intellectuals of the “Sixties”. Both of these “classics of dissidence” were not intellectually independent: their criticism of the USSR was in fact the “creative development” of the philosophers of the Frankfurt school who emigrated from Germany to the USA, as well as the dystopias of Aldous Huxley and George Orwell.

The trust of Soviet scholars and artists to the allies in World War II became the “Achilles heel”, which was used to the maximum after the Soviet trials with an ethnic tinge - the “doctors' case” and the “poets case”: the myth about “Stalin’s zoological anti-Semitism” around them was a convenient tool for splitting the party elites of Eastern Europe, which the CIA under the direction of Allen Dulles was directly involved in. In turn, the Soviet physicists involved in the Pugwash process become adherents of the “theory of convergence”, and later on the “theory of growth limits” within the framework of the Club of Rome.

As a result, the core nuclei of "dissidence" become a) a circle of specialists in basic sciences who accepted the peacemaking aspirations of the allegedly discharging West, and b) a circle of academic historians who professionally studied Anglo-Russian relations (A.M. Nekrich, M.Y. Gefter and others), c) a circle of writers who came into contact with dissident colleagues from Eastern Europe (S. Geim in the GDR, E. Goldshtyuker in Czechoslovakia, D. Lukach in Hungary) and Western leftist intellectuals, d) circle of cinema and theater figures charmed by aesthetics fran uzskogo and Italian existentialism, etc.) Circle of Fine Arts and Music formalist directions, e) the terms of biologists geneticists, ideologically akin to Darwinian evolutionism and anthropology, g) terms of psychologists, together with East European colleagues developing neo-Freudian concept.

At the same time, the leadership of the CPSU almost openly supported the "Marxist dissidents" (R. A. Medvedev, L. V. Karpinsky), legally working in the INION system and a number of Soviet publishers designed for foreign readers. In addition, representatives of the patriotic wing (I.R. Shafarevich, V.N.Osipov, L.I. Borodin and others) had a large proportion in the dissident movement, but their possible alliance with the patriots inside the Soviet system as an alternative to Gorbachev's restructuring did not take place.

One way or another, dissidence remained the breeding ground for the future Troubles, but not its organizational mechanism. In terms of organization, the future of Troubles and betrayal matured in the depths of the party elite of the country, where for many years those “cadres” were trained, who in 80s took revenge on the alien national-state system. A number of analysts see the sources of this implicit conspiracy of a well-known party leader, the ideologist of the Comintern, OV Kuusinen. That he belonged to the basic ideas of Khrushchev "de-Stalinization." It was to his guardianship and spiritual leadership that Andropov, who was rapidly rising under Khrushchev, was obliged. It was a united and fast-moving group, by whose efforts both Gorbachev and Yakovlev were elevated to the political Olympus. At the root of their ideas about life were hidden Westernism and Russophobic complexes [9].

Although at the time of the creation of the "Committee of enslaved peoples" (1959) in the USSR, potential activists of separatist movements were systematically and purposefully sought out, only after the Helsinki Act these efforts are justified: the "tamed" nuclear academic A.Sakharov becomes an icon of the Karabakh Armenians at the same time , Crimean Tatars and Jewish engineers who do not receive permission to emigrate due to secrecy (the so-called "otkazniks").

Another fruit of the falsely understood "convergence" partnership of Russian and Western economists in the framework of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) gives rise to another "vulnerable community": a circle of economists brought up by the ideas of K. Popper, L. von Mises and F. von Hayek As a result, by the beginning of the “second phase of perestroika”, the start of which is the death of dissident Marchenko, the community of dissident creative intellectuals is united into one unit with neoliberal adepts, who formulate the image of Russia's future based on the colonial scenarios of Latin American countries. The economic reform strategy of the post-perestroika period is being prepared by rival groups that are close to the Democratic Reforms Movement and the Democratic Russia Movement, respectively. Of the two approaches, the self-governing (Shatalin-Yavlinsky) and the institutionalist (Naishul-Chubais-Gaidar) Boris Yeltsin chooses the second, preferring the colonial dictatorship to the self-governed chaos; this choice is finally secured by the April referendum and the shooting of parliament (1993).

By the autumn of 1993, some of the dissidents of 1970, in the face of the disaster of their native country, bitterly repent of the contribution they had made to its destruction, and moreover, join the ranks of the defenders of Russian civilization. At the same time, in the opposition movement, in particular thanks to the efforts of the newspaper Den, Tomorrow, the imposed opposition of the “white” to “red” is overcome; By 1996, the restored Communist Party makes the final choice between state patriotism and the “theory of sustainable development” imposed by the Rome Club. On the other hand, organizations such as the Liberal Club, the Center for Liberal-Conservative Politics, the Moscow Anti-Fascist Center, Memorial, and others expressed the official views of President Yeltsin and the government. It concerned both history and modernity. In the course of the official campaign of "de-Stalinization", not only the Soviet, but also the imperial history of Russia was actually being denied. All those who disagreed with such a policy were subject to defamation.

On the eve of the election of 1996, the seemingly polar beginnings (Chubais and Pavlovsky) are again emerging in an effort to “prevent communist revenge”, while the financial structures that supported the CPRF become objects of administrative reprisal. As a result, in the second term of Yeltsin, the power in the country is actually ruled by the "seven bankers", which not only accelerates the deregulation of the economy and social polarization, but also brings together the interests of the oligarchs with the radical separatist lobbies in the North Caucasus. This rapprochement has its own correspondence in the activities of official human rights defenders, when the ombudsman S.Kovalev actually came out in defense of terrorism [10].

Advocates of the special rights of specific minorities, opposed to the state and shocking public opinion, are still widely represented in government bodies - from the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation to the Council under the President of the Russian Federation on the development of civil society and human rights. Under their guardianship are numerous social structures defending unrestricted freedom of religion (in practice, the rights of sects, including those prohibited in European countries), unlimited children's rights (in practice, the right of children to inform parents and, as a result, to lose a family), sexual education ( in practice, encouraging promiscuous sexual relations and birth control), tolerance (in practice, the exclusive rights of certain ethnic minorities), and so on.

The duality of Russian statehood, which is simultaneously striving to break out of the Third Trouble and to integrate into the Western European world, was not eliminated in the first decade of the 21st century, which was especially evident in 2008-12. in the administrative dual power ("tandem"), which crushed and decomposed the ruling party. Concessions to the Euro-Atlantic community in the field of law (accession to the 14 protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights, attempts to introduce juvenile justice, decriminalization of economic crimes), economic management (privatization of state corporations, introduction of foreign independent directors), public policy (grotesque liberalization of electoral law) , military policy (the signing of START-3) in practice turns out not to strengthen the status of the Russian elite in the world governing circles, and vice versa - in gluing corruption labels to this elite, equating it with the Third World establishments, to extralegal “artificial selection” (Magnitsky list, etc.) and ultimately to direct expropriation of both private and corporate assets by the hands of the police departments in the crisis of Europe. The last excesses of the duality of our state, its internal splitting was the confrontation between the “swamp” opposition and the “worship” anti-opposition, in which the civilizational nature of the political struggle was uncovered to the limit [11].

All this experience shows that our country has always been considered when it was not only stronger militarily, but also independent in its policy; when its progress was achieved not only by the presence of a strong centralized power, but also by sovereign civilizational identity. The split into "red" and "white", "right" and "left" in itself, forcing their incompatibility in itself is a symptom of weakening national immunity, weak national power and will, and sociability of society for external games.

4. How the Russian Empire went to "state socialism"

Our people are internally united by a sense of justice, a centuries-old burden to social truth. At different historical stages of development of the Russian civilization, this beginning found a different incarnation, including sometimes destructive, rebellious. The Russian empire - the White Tsar's power [12] - was the result of the centuries-old activity of the people, and therefore it was permeated with features of "red", "socialist". (But not in the sense of the socialism that preached Marxism, which called Russia the main obstacle to the new revolution.) The natural, natural socialist principle clearly manifested itself in the Russian community, in the Osiflyan monastic economy, in cooperative and solidary popular forms of cooperation, the artel spirit of the peasantry . This beginning did not dissolve in itself and did not replace the state, but rather rather gradually impregnated it. This tendency was especially clearly manifested in the late Russian Empire, which was marching towards state socialism by leaps and bounds. (At the same time, of course, the tsar’s strong rival, big capital, developed in parallel, which was the content of the main political dilemma of this period.).

One of the leading ideologues of Russian monarchism, Ivan Solonevich, who did not sympathize with socialism at all, in his “People’s Monarchy” wrote: “Imperial Russia was a country in which, at that time, the“ socialized sector of the national economy ”was more than anywhere else in the world. The State Bank controlled all the banks of Russia and had the exclusive right to issue credit notes. Most of the railways belonged to the treasury, and the remaining private roads stood on the eve of "buyback to the treasury"; the state owned vast land parcels. wandering, owned factories and mines Zemskaya medicine was delivered as it is, and is not set anywhere in the world Zemstva started to build its pharmaceutical industry -... with the help of Russian state credit cooperative movement was the most powerful in the world. "

Researchers note that in the Russian Empire, state-owned factories were not commercial enterprises at all, and this was emphasized in official documents. A special role was played by government orders, which made all departments. Of course, it is worth noting the presence of state-owned monopolies and excise taxes, which gave about half of the total income of the empire. “So, one part of the industry was owned by the state, the other part was subject to state regulation to some extent. But both of these parts remained practically outside the sphere of market relations" (A.A. Novikov. "History of Russian Entrepreneurship")

Russian workers were superbly organized - in Russia there was the largest concentration of production and labor. In 1913, at large domestic enterprises (over 1 thousands of workers) 39% of all workers worked (whereas in Germany - 10%). In Petersburg alone, the 250 of thousands of factory proletarians were concentrated. At the same time, perfect working legislation was developed and adopted in the country, which US President Taft publicly admitted in 1912, speaking literally that no democratic state can boast of such an achievement.

At the beginning of 1914, the government intended to introduce five-year planning cycles, outlining the pace and timing of the construction of railways, ports and large hydroelectric power plants (the Dnieper and Volkhovskaya). This was already an application for a planned economy, which once again unites the late Russian empire and the USSR.

“Few people know,” writes the modern researcher Vadim Bondar, “but in order to maintain and accelerate the growth of the domestic economic system, population size, welfare and stability in society, the tsarist regime centrally regulated prices for basic goods and services: energy (primarily oil ), manganese, bread, train and tram tickets, postal and telegraph rates. Homeowners were forbidden to raise prices when renting apartments. As a result, Russian industry will increase from 1894 to 1913. It has quadrupled its productivity. At the beginning of the second decade of the last century, 63% of the equipment and means of production used in industry was produced domestically. " ("Unfavorable comparisons" // However, January 23 2013).

One important page of history draws attention to itself: the conflict of power and big capital during the First World War. In 1915-1916 the government opposed price inflation and “bacchanalia of profit”, sharply restricting the rights of the so-called “military-industrial committees” (MIC) and also establishing strict control over the budgets of the All-Russian Zemstvo Union, All-Russian Union of Cities and other large-scale pro-liberal organizations. The role of the military "state acceptance" of profile products has grown significantly, individual departments have already planned to create their own metallurgical plants and expand the network of transport engineering. It is characteristic that the liberal opposition characterized these measures as "state socialism". (A reasonable question arises: didn’t this conflict have pushed Russian “money bags” to support the February revolution? In any case, after February a special commission was created that curtailed the former system of state regulation).

It should be noted that before the February Revolution, the tsarist government began large-scale nationalization, and its first results were already very impressive. So, the government took custody of the famous Putilov factory, bankrupt due to financial frauds of its owner. Prior to the nationalization, the plant practically did not release six-inch shells, but after that it had already given half of the total number of shells. "After the mobilization of the defense industry by 1917, military production in Russia grew 2, 3 times, fully satisfying the front requirements for weapons and ammunition," historian V.N. Galin comments on this and other measures of the government. - Production of some shells grew in 40 Shells were done so much that they were enough for the entire Civil War, and even in 1941, the Red Army used 1917 shrapnel of the release year. " ("Trends. Intervention and Civil War." T. 2).

It is safe to say that the tsarist government was going to go in many respects the same course of development that the Bolsheviks subsequently went [13]. Of course, the measures would not be as tough as in the Civil War and the era of collectivization. However, it cannot be denied that the surplus was attempted to be introduced in November 1916 of the year, explaining this with military needs (decree "On the development of grain breads and fodder acquired for defense-related needs", signed by Agriculture Minister A. Rittikh). However, Rittikh himself insisted on the “voluntary” nature of this campaign, in order to avoid compulsory requisition, as an appeal to the patriotic feelings of the peasants and landowners. The idea of ​​a surplus was picked up and attempted to be implemented by the Provisional Government (monopoly on bread), which also resorted to requisitions. And only the Soviet government, ready for ultimate rigidity, achieved, and even then not immediately, an obvious success in this matter, since it organized a special apparatus for the purposes of the surplus: a special Food Army, operating in conjunction with other law enforcement agencies and combos.

By 1917, the sharpest of the unresolved political issues remained the land issue, and the most acute of the spiritual and ideological issues at stake was the question of the deepest crisis of values ​​in the educated segments of society, the decline of patriotism, the growth of contempt for Russia, its traditions and history, and the enormous conceit of the politicized intelligentsia. , in fact, has become a "fifth column" in the country. Apparently, it was precisely these two issues that, despite the country's rapid development, its demographic boom, impressive growth in production, wealth and literacy, determined the main prerequisites for the collapse of the autocracy in an exhausting war and a split in the elite.

Questions about the land and loyalty to their own people were deeply raised by some of the representatives of Russian populism. At the same time the populist movement was very diverse. Anarchists, such as M.A. Bakunin, and Blanquist conspirators of the type P.N. Tkachev. There were "liberal" populists (N.K. Mikhailovsky), advocating reconciliation with the king and the monarchy. The main direction within Narodism was Lavrovsky (PL Lavrov), associated with the desire to serve the people and at the end of the 19th century, largely joined the Zemstvo movement. Finally, there was a little studied conservative populism (PP Chervinsky), which was adjacent to the "right" Slavophilism. There was nothing improbable in the rapprochement of populism and autocratic power. So, for example, sovereign Nicholas II, was, in the words of N. O. Lossky, a kind of "Christian populist". At the same time, a part of the populists, especially of the radical sense, as we have already mentioned above, were undoubtedly used by the enemies of Russia in the “right-left game”. And here you can see a significant difference between the socialist understanding of justice and revolutionary projects, in which the very preaching of justice often appeared only as a means to achieve other goals - in particular, the complete destruction of the existing system at any cost.

If the 1870’s “going to the people” revealed a deep discrepancy between the theoretical socialism of the intelligentsia and that primordial “social order”, the real carriers of which were peasants, then the development practice of peasant cooperation in the late 19th – early 20th century showed that the “socialist” trend was not was purely intellectual. This was the era of the extraordinary development of cooperation in all its forms, the unprecedented growth of cooperatives, artels and handicraft industries. At the same time, the growth of cooperative unions, whose leaders proposed their own term for describing the future economic system of Russia - "cooperative" - ​​went along. It was considered as an alternative to capitalism, an independent way of grassroots people's self-organization, the development of a network of cooperative farms, gradually encompassing all conceivable and inconceivable areas of the market. This path seemed to the narodnik socialists the only correct one, giving the chance to the folk artel to survive and acquire mature forms. By the autumn of 1917, the total number of cooperatives in Russia reached 63-64 thousand, they covered at least 14 million people. Russia on the scale of the cooperative movement came out on top in the world. At the same time, government orders were the most important factor for the development of industrial cooperation, which once again points to the state-socialist course of development that the country went through. It is curious that during the years of the Civil War, the Bolsheviks used this system established during the reign of the tsar - the number of government orders to handicraftsmen and artel workers even increased.

The reliance on the community and the artel as a form alternative to Western capitalism was a common feature of not only revolutionary movements, but also Slavophiles, right-wing populists, and part of the representatives of the conservative spectrum. Thus, the economic programs of the Union of the Russian People and the Union of Michael the Archangel in many respects were precisely the people's socialist. Such a “fiery reactionary” as Konstantin Leontyev spoke out decisively in favor of the “communism of the Russian land community”. In addition, this "pillar of reaction" highly respected Herzen and learned a lot from his works. A significant coincidence - Leontiev was very close in his views to Lev Tikhomirov, one of the leading theorists of right-wing monarchism and a former major functionary of Narodnaya Volya. Tikhomirov himself, having ceased to be a populist, nevertheless, constantly emphasized the “merits of socialism”, to which he referred: 1) strengthening of collective principles in an overly individualized society; 2) increased public support; 3) fair and even distribution of livelihoods. He considered the question of eliminating the abuses of capitalism “even more than moral”, saying that society simply had to change the existing order (“Merits and errors of socialism”).

Marxists (Plekhanov, Lenin) harshly criticized populists, arguing the need for capitalization of Russia, which allegedly creates the basis for the next spurt to socialism. And in this they opposed Karl Marx himself, who emphasized that the path of development that he described in his sketch of the emergence of capitalism in Western Europe was not binding for other civilizations (K. Marx, F. Engels. Works. T. 19. C. 250) . The late Marx spoke directly about the possibility of a revolution in Russia with its undeveloped capitalist structure. In a letter to Vera Zasulich, which remained unpublished for a long time, he stated: “If the revolution occurs at the appropriate time, if it concentrates all its forces to ensure the free development of the rural community, the latter will soon become an element of the revival of Russian society and an element of superiority over those countries that are under the yoke of the capitalist system "(Works. T. 19. C. 410) [14].

The practical embodiment of the ideas of Tikhomirov and other conservatives who sought the synthesis of socialism and traditionalism was the notorious “police socialism” of Colonel S.V. Zubatov - who, by the way, was a friend of Tikhomirov. It was an attempt to put forward a real alternative to both the alliance of the bureaucracy and capital, and revolutionary social democracy. By definition, Zubatov, revolutionary ideas, first of all, Marxism, are not the ideas of the working class, but ideas about the working class, which is only an external force towards it. He proposed to create a network of legal labor unions and appoint to their leadership people who are faithful, loyal to the monarchical system, and not affiliated with the capitalists. The result was immediate: in all labor disputes, the Zubatov organizations took the side, not of the capitalists, but of the workers. They fought legally for wage increases and shorter working hours; they took all the negotiations with employers, on behalf and on behalf of the workers themselves. Zubatov himself personally defended the workers' right to strike. With the consistent introduction of the Zubatov model throughout Russia, the working class was becoming not an instrument of revolution, but the support of autocracy. Zubatov put forward a goal: the transformation of the Russian proletariat into a class recognized by the state. Another important direction within the Zubatov model was the desire to increase the education of workers in order to gradually form a "popular intelligentsia" (a term which then, under Stalin, would become official!), Which in its level of education would not be inferior to the upper classes, but would be closely linked to working environment and would not break ties with Orthodoxy. The end of the Zubatov movement was laid in the 1903 year, after the Kishinev pogrom, which was provoked in the course of the growing “right-left” game, which resulted in the dissolution of the Jewish Independent Workers' Party created by Zubatov. The ideological monarchist socialism, developed by the largest police and trade union activist of Russia, was discredited. From this point on, the radicals intercept the initiative in the labor movement.

In connection with what has just been said, it will not seem shocking to the fact that many monarchist-statesmen preferred Soviet power to the white movement. Thus, according to modern historical research, more than half of the leaders of right-wing political trends in the fall of 1917, or in 1918, saw in the Bolsheviks a force that, against their will, would be forced to become quasi-monarchical and authoritarian. It is characteristic that the monarchists took with great satisfaction the dispersal of the Constituent Assembly. Among the famous monarchists of this persuasion were Academician Nikolsky, the former leader of the Union of the Russian People, Dr. Dubrovin and the outstanding Russian philosopher Losev, who noted with satisfaction in his diary about the upcoming identity of socialism and monarchism. On the other hand, statements that either monarchy is possible in Russia, or Bolshevism or anarchism, but not intermediate regimes, were voiced from the lips of Leon Trotsky and Nestor Makhno.

Often there were cases when the Black Hundreds went to the service of the Bolsheviks. This is partly due to the fact that after the February Revolution the monarchist movement experienced a decline caused, in no small measure, by the repressive measures of the "democratic" Provisional Government, which banned all right-wing parties and organizations. Under these conditions, the most right-wing political forces became the Cadets, who held positions of national liberalism. Already in the spring of 1917, the Provisional Government began to purge the army of monarchical officers and generals. As a result, subsequently almost 80% of the tsarist officers began to serve the Soviet government. After the Brest Peace, the 83 commanders of the 100 field armies formed by the Bolsheviks were not party members, but Tsarist officers.

The division of the Russian military leadership, which laid the foundation for the future opposition of the "red" and "white", occurred in the middle of the summer 1917. The struggle against the Provisional Government - but also against the "savior of Russian democracy" by General L. G. Kornilov (who personally led the arrest of the Royal Family in the spring of 1917) - was conducted at this time by General N. M. Potapov [15]. Together with Potapov, the military minister, Major General A.I. Verkhovsky, Commander-in-Chief of the Northern Front, General of Infantry VN Klembovsky, Chief of Staff and Commandant of the Pskov Garrison, Major General MD Bonch-Bruyevich, acted.

Most of the military who went to serve in the Red Army, adhered to monarchical views. This frankly reports in his memoirs and A.I. Denikin. November 23 1917 N.M. Potapov was appointed Chief of the General Staff and Head of the War Ministry, and since December 1917 he has been appointed to the post of Commissar. 4 March 1918 was established in the Republic of Soviets by the Supreme Military Council, headed by General MD Bonch-Bruyevich. Colonel of the Imperial General Staff PP Lebedev became the Chief of Staff of the Red Army, Colonel I. Vatsetis - Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Soviets, Colonel of the General Staff B. Shaposhnikov - Head of the Operational Directorate of the Red Army Field Staff (from 1937 of the year - Chief of the General Staff The Red Army, in 1941-45 - Stalin's deputy in the Commissariat of Defense. Lieutenant-General NDParsky commanded the Northern Front, Major General N.N. Petin on the Western, Southern and South-Western Fronts, Major General A.A. Samoylo ​​on the Northern and Eastern. This list can be continued. The entire fleet was entirely in the hands of the old Russian naval officers. They were led by Rear-Admirals MVIvanov, VMAltfater, AVNimits, Vice-Admiral A.A.Razvozov and others. A non-party stratum of admirals and captains existed and was influential throughout the subsequent history of the Soviet Navy.

In June 1917, the Minister of the Provisional Government, the Menshevik I.G. Tsereteli said: "The general counter-revolution will enter through the gates of the Bolsheviks." However, the story went the other way. Obviously, monarchist officers did not share the ideals and strategic goals of the Bolsheviks. They turned to red for tactical reasons. At the same time, the fate of the majority of monarchical-minded officers, military specialists, and military advisers was tragic in Soviet Russia. Among the generals of the Great Patriotic War there is almost no such category of professional military personnel. According to researcher Ya.Yu. Tinchenko, "the bulk of the Russian officers who remained or returned to the USSR, was exterminated before the 1931 year - mainly during Operation Spring, the Red Army purge by the OGPU with former military specialists. In total, more than 3 thousand people were arrested" ("Golgotha ​​Russian officers in USSR").

5. On the Stalinist evolution of Bolshevism

During the First World War, Lenin and his associates advocated the defeat of Russia, putting forward the thesis of "turning the imperialist war into a civil war." The turning point came immediately after the Bolsheviks came to power. It is reflected in such documents as appeals: "The socialist fatherland is in danger!" and "To the working Muslims of Russia and the East". Contrary to the theses of Marx that the proletariat has no fatherland, Lenin used not only this word, but in fact for the first time, although it is not declared, a provision appears on national socialist statehood. In the second appeal, a clear separation is made between the exploitative Western civilization and the traditional Eastern culture, the Islamic culture, to which the Bolsheviks seek support. This civilization vector was inconsistent, Lenin balanced on the verge of the ideology of the Comintern and the national (civilizational) reading of Marxism.

At the same time, Lenin’s objectively historical role was that he led Russia as a second-tier capitalist development country out of an unequal game [16] imposed on her and thereby fulfilled the program of Russia's conservative reaction to supermodernization. The country could go along the path of civilization inclusion in the West with subsequent spiritual and cultural capitulation, or along the path of becoming an agrarian and resource appendage of the West with the external preservation of culture and imitation of political independence. The Bolshevik course, despite the slogans of the Russian revolution developing into the world one, objectively promoted Russia's withdrawal from this dilemma in the direction of the third possibility - the avant-garde development and transformation of identity in one, "separately taken" civilization without mixing-subordination to other civilizations. This course was undoubtedly complicated by the prospect of a world revolution, “into the furnace” of which the radical Trotskyists intended to throw, if need be, all Russian fuel. Nevertheless, it was this, the national-state, and not the globalist possibility of Bolshevism that Stalin realized.

Stalin’s path to a new ideological synthesis in its individual features can be observed as early as the revolutionary years, when he developed his own model of national policy, which contrasted sharply with the views adopted by the Bolsheviks. It was a plan for autonomy — national republics are incorporated into Soviet Russia with the rights of autonomy without the right to secede, but with the preservation of their national language and culture, i.e. as it was with the king. In other words, Stalin had already insisted on building a state on grounds close to the national policy of the Russian Empire. One of Stalin's "secrets" was that he doubted the success of the "world revolution" and initially prepared the prerequisites for the transition of Bolshevism from Comintern to civilizational, and of course "Russian" rails. In 1918, Stalin wrote: "There is no revolutionary movement in the West, no facts, only potency, but we cannot reckon with potency." Five years later, in a letter to Zinoviev, he again showed skepticism: “If now in Germany the power falls, so to speak, and the communists catch, they will fail with a crash. This is“ at best. ”And at worst - they will smash to pieces and they will be thrown back ... I think the Germans must be held, not encouraged. " And although Lenin's point of view on the confederative structure of the USSR defeated Stalin, nevertheless, it was Stalin who in 1922 became the main developer of the logic of the union state embodied in the first USSR Constitution. It approved the “unified budget of the USSR”, which was the decisive link of the country's unity.

The key moment when Stalin’s break with the dogma of Marxism 1927 was marked the year, the year of the official statement about the need to build socialism in one particular country under the capitalist environment (he first expressed this idea in 1924 year). Prior to this, the main slogan of the party was the world revolution. In the same year, 1927, the ideologist of the “permanent revolution” Trotsky is sent to Alma-Ata.

Even with the death of Lenin in 1924, Stalin actually begins a silent reversal towards the national - and he does this through a virtuoso move: "Lenin's call" in the RCP (b). From that moment on, the peasant Russian type rooted in the lower ranks of the party, the type of worker from the machine tool and the "conscious peasant", who in his upbringing and culture sharply differed from the old Bolshevik intellectuals and European communists, frank carriers of libertine, free sexual morality, and extreme ideas of socialization property. In the words of Nikolai Berdyaev, “the gathering of the Russian people under the banner of communism” took place under Stalin. At the same time, for the sake of maintaining influence in the Comintern and in the West, he continued to maintain "Leninist principles" and forms.

In 1932, two laws were passed, the law on the prohibition of abortion and the abolition of the decree that eliminated criminal liability for homosexuality, passed directly under Stalin’s direction. (One of the first decrees of the Soviet government - they say little about it - was a decree prohibiting criminal prosecution for homosexuality.) Is it important? - may ask skeptics. From the point of view of the October Revolution, these things, perhaps, were not the main ones - but they were significant. Party organizations from 1932, the year is charged with monitoring the purity of morals. In particular, divorces among party members are not only discouraged, but often lead to expulsion from the party. In other words, the party assumes a moral function similar to the Church.

Outline further the evolution of Stalin, and with it the entire country.

1936 year - the official condemnation of the so-called historical school of Pokrovsky, all of whose students are expelled from the department. In the same year, Stalin in the Pravda newspaper calls the poem of Demyan Poorny a great mistake, in which he mocks the Baptism of Russia and Prince Vladimir [17]. November 7, which was previously called the First Day of the World Revolution, loses that name. In the same year, the term "Soviet patriotism" first appeared.

1937 year - during the "Greater Terror" there is a consistent eradication of the "Leninist Guard", and therefore the update is no longer the lower classes, but the upper stratum of the party and state administration. From this point on, it can be said that the country is led by new people, younger ones, focused on sovereign development, somehow fed up under Stalin.

1939 year at the XVIII Congress of the Party are subject to revision of the idea of ​​the withering away of the state of Engels-Lenin. Stalin focused the party on the fact that the state will always exist, however, he made a reservation as long as the capitalist environment exists. It was the tacit proclamation of national state socialism [18]. In the same year, the secret decision of the Politburo abolished Lenin’s anti-clerical instructions of 1 in May of 1919 and the practice of the NKVD “regarding arrests of church ministers and the persecution of believers” was found inappropriate.

1941 year - in the famous speech of 7 November, Stalin proclaims the patriotic orientation of the Soviet people to the heroes of the Russian military past.

1942 year - the introduction of military awards for senior commanders, bearing the names of the great generals of the past - Alexander Nevsky, Alexander Suvorov, Mikhail Kutuzov.

1943 year - the dissolution of the Comintern; approval of the new anthem of the USSR. The Red Army is becoming "gold-wielding," which yesterday seemed unthinkable. The Patriarchate is being restored and the priests are being returned en masse from places of detention and exile, spiritual academies and seminaries are being opened, other measures are being taken to normalize the life of the Church.

1947 year - the start of the campaign to combat the "cult of the West", anti-patriotic, anti-state sentiment (later - the fight against cosmopolitanism).

1952 year at the XIX Party Congress, Stalin declares: "Before, the bourgeoisie was considered the head of the nation, it defended the rights and independence of the nation, putting them" above all. "Now there is no trace of the" national principle. "Now the bourgeoisie sells the rights and independence of the nation for dollars The banner of national independence and national sovereignty is thrown overboard. There is no doubt that you, representatives of the communist and democratic parties, will have to raise this banner and carry it forward if you want to be patriots of your country, if you want to s leading force of the nation. His no one else to pick up. "

So, we see a consistent evolution from the revolutionary “anti-system” to the Russian civilizational project, in “red” forms, based on the principles of breakthrough development, cruel exertion of forces and sacrificial service. It was about developing a new socio-cultural type. About this academician V.I. Vernadsky at the end of 1941 wrote: “It is absolutely incomparable. The people seem to be reborn. There is no commissary, profit and robbing. The army is supplied, apparently, very well. The collective farms help a lot. Disagreement between the officers and soldiers disappeared. Many talented people ... reach top military posts. "

In mutual “red-and-white” disputes and claims, the main argument was and remains the reproach of aggressive godlessness. The ecclesiastical spring, declared by Stalin in the 1943 year, should be recognized as a far from full-fledged restoration of religious freedom. It was rather some kind of “relief”, which seemed to be deliverance only against the background of the era of monstrous anti-religious terror. However, the Church itself, having gone through persecution, was transformed. This was no longer the Church of the Year 1917, which blessed the fall of the autocracy and, together with all the educated classes of Russia, showed tremendous self-conceit. Now it was the Church of martyrs, sufferers, prayers, who paid the full price for their faith. And their attitude to the harsh power can be defined as "patience", humility before the test of God. This can be judged by the biographies and memoirs of many representatives of the Church who sincerely sought ways to cooperate with the Soviet state, such as Metropolitan Nikolai (Yarushevich) or Metropolitan Veniamin (Fedchenkov) and others.

“Our Patriarchs Sergius and Alexy,” wrote Father Dimitry Dudko, “called Stalin the God-given leader. They were joined by others, say, such as the great scholar and theologian Archbishop Luke (Voyno-Yasenetsky), who, by the way, was under Stalin, but this is not prevented him from calling Stalin God-given ... Stalin is an atheist from the outside, but in fact he is a believer ... It was not by chance that in the Russian Orthodox Church they sang to him when he died, even eternal memory "(" From the thoughts of the priest about Stalin ") . In his other work, Father Dimitrii gave this formula: under Stalin, in a godless state, in godless times, people lived according to God's commandments.

The attitude of Stalin to Orthodoxy is still a mystery. It is unclear why the opening of new churches almost ceased in 1948. One way or another, the secret materials and notes are gradually becoming public property. And the following quotation from Stalin is capable of striking many people of the old generation: "Reforms are inevitable, but some time ago. And these must be organic reforms, [...] based on tradition with a gradual restoration of Orthodox self-consciousness. Very soon wars over territories will be replaced by cold wars" - for resources and energy. You need to be prepared for this "[19].

Today it is becoming clearer to many that the “red era” was not a spiritual, godless, deeply atheistic era. Militant atheists and destroyers of temples is a difficult page of our history, but it does not exhaust the question of spiritual life in this period. The Soviet people confirmed their amazing mystical spirituality during the war, confirmed it with the Victory of 1945 of the year, which had a great religious meaning. Today, the Russian Orthodox Church is ready to celebrate the Victory of 1945 of the year as a religious holiday, a celebration redeemed by 30-million victims. This assembly of the dead is a sacred atoning sacrifice, since the war was fought not so much for geopolitical space, or for ideology. It was a terrible religious-deep, cosmogonic fight — a war in which two metaphysical, ontological forces clashed. That is why it demanded such gigantic sacrifices from our Motherland. As a result of our Victory, humanity was liberated from the mysterious, mystical dark power that had matured for centuries, which was personified by Hitler and National Socialism. Hitler, if you look at him in the religious space of meanings, was undoubtedly not just a conqueror, but a figure from the apocalyptic series. From this point of view, if the sacrifices of Russia were not made, there would be no one to bring them, and humanity would rush to its end. According to the same priest Dimitri Dudko, the heroes who died on the margins of the Great Patriotic War, including those who belonged to the Stalinist red pantheon Talalikhin, Gastello, Zoya Kosmodemyanskaya, Liza Chaikin, 28 Panfilov Guardsmen, General Karbyshev, Orthodox martyrs, martyrs, martyrs, martyrs, martyrs, generalists, Generalists of the Panfilov guards, General Karbyshev, Orthodox martyrs, martyrs, martyrs, martyrs, martyrs, generalists, XNUMX, Panfilov guardsmen, General Karbyshev, Orthodox martyrs, martyrs, martyrs, martyrs, martyrs, generalists, XNUMX, Panfilov guardsmen, General Karbyshev, Orthodox martyrs, martyrs, martyrs, martyrs, martyrs, generalists of the Panfilov guards, General Karbyshev, Orthodox martyrs, tormentors and were not baptized, baptized by blood on the battlefields. These were the people who laid down their stomach for their friends, for their homeland.

The Westernization of life that began since the days of the Khrushchev Thaw ultimately led to the collapse of the USSR in the 1991 year, while the Westernization of consciousness affected both the Church and the believers, especially from among the intelligentsia, for whom religious faith was increasingly identified with political opposition and liberal aspirations (although the younger, more conservative part was rather inclined to the mechanical - without any organic matter - restoration of the pre-revolutionary past, which, incidentally, was also used by the West in the cold war). After 1991, the Church “gained freedom”, but this freedom was only a deepening of the “separation from the state” proclaimed by the Bolsheviks, more precisely, a literal execution of this thesis (in a short period of 1943-1956) some kind of “symphony” reappeared, and then , after the so-called "Khrushchev persecutions", the Church came under the hard press of the party political leadership).

It must be emphasized: the USSR has preserved much of the pre-revolutionary heritage and old Russia. In no small measure, thanks to Stalin, who overcame the revolutionary orgy, the classical culture of tsarist Russia became the foundation of Russian Soviet culture. If we take into account that the 20th century was the century of mass culture, the culture of the crowd, cinema and radio, then in the USSR high samples of this culture were given and fixed, aiming not at the existence of a “ruminant animal” in human form, not at degradation or arrest in development, but on the internal growth of a person, his desire to rise on a par with the highest achievements of science and art. And in a number of areas of the USSR gave such results, forged the corresponding human "material".

6. On the revolution of the money-givers

At the Twentieth Party Congress, Khrushchev began an open campaign of "de-Stalinization". In worldview and social terms, it had disastrous consequences. Khrushchev announced the abandonment of the most important ideals and values ​​of the already established Soviet system, and in return put forward a program to build "consumer communism." Everyone knew that such a "communism" had already been built, a "consumer society", which the United States [20] had a showcase in the world.

And so the heroic Soviet people, the martyred people and the winning people, Khrushchev sets a goal: to catch up with America in its consumption of the “bread of the earth”. It was an open insult to the people of the "Stalin era" and a signal to mobilize consumers. Finally, the power goes to the alliance with them!

From the point of view of the generation of heroes, the war has united all. But by the middle of 60, these people were confronted with a cohesive and influential "small people" who denied the entire Soviet way of life, and especially those who built it, pulled the strap, burned at work and went to the front as a volunteer. The nomenclature of the new generation not only did not meet the standards of the "Stalin era", she secretly hated and feared them, especially she was afraid of new repressions.

The litmus test of reorientation of the policy of the country's leadership to "consumer communism" was a change in Soviet aesthetics, changes in style: architecture oriented towards the "little man", unpretentious taste in mass art, dominance on posters of images of Soviet inhabitants. It is indicative that the philistine-consumer motives were combined in Khrushchev with a certain return to the revolutionary-Trotskyist orthodoxy. And in many respects, he proved himself precisely as a "counterreformer." Hope for the early coming of communism, the revival of leveling, the rejection of Russian patriotism, the reckless support of various "progressive movements" around the world, including atheism and neo-positivism in the spirit of Bertrand Russell, the emphasis on revolutionary internationalism, the resumption of anti-religious campaign, the struggle with home gardens - all these are manifestations of a "left reaction". Khrushchev's notorious voluntarism is nothing more than a sign of leftism.

At the same time, the spirit of liberalization, the “thaw” and the grounding of the Soviet project did not meet with serious resistance. For the most part, people from the people truly felt the degradation of the system and quietly cursed Khrushchev as the worthless heir of Stalin. But there was another side to the coin.

First, the Khrushchev ideology was craftily packed into an outwardly flawless romantic shell - claims about the imminent achievement of superiority over the West, demonstrative uncompromising, the greatness of the Soviet army and weapons, new victories of science, the conquest of outer space and virgin lands, etc. To the address of rhetoric packed in this way, the reproach of grounding in principle could not be announced. The whole horror of Khrushchev's substitution was precisely in its creeping character and in the growing gap of double standards. In addition, Khrushchev appealed to humanism, a departure from the cruelty of the 30-s.

Secondly, in the broad masses of the population, a certain fatigue has accumulated from the Stalinist project with its super-efforts and super-slayers. The ideology of “only there was no war”, the ideology of consumption and “goulash communism” partly met the aspirations of yesterday’s Stalinist drummers, front and rear veterans. Psychological degeneration towards consumerism has affected not only the elite, but also the broad masses. And they are hard to blame for this: moving from a communal apartment or barrack to a standard one, like a hive cell, but a warm “Khrushchev” with a TV seemed like a breakthrough into a “normal,” full-fledged life. Likewise, the opportunity to leave the city from the village, ruined by the Khrushchev reform, seemed to be a salvation for the young people of 60's. And if we use the expression of Academician Vernadsky, quoted by us above, people began to reborn again - only in the opposite direction [21].

How does all this relate to the ideals of the "red" and "white" traditions? Undoubtedly, we are talking about entropic processes, about the development within the state of those forces that again in the wake of the next Troubles and in the course of the new “right-left” game depict a “red” or “white” denial. In this case, it was convenient, while denying the Soviet way of life, to put on “white” clothes, especially since it did not oblige anything.

The anti-Soviet "elite", pushing aside "the fighters, creators and workers", of course, was neither white nor red in the sense that we put in these concepts. She staked on the consolidation and revitalization of exactly that cultural-historical type, which was suppressed and went into the shadows in the "Stalin era" - the colorless possessor [22]. Although in Russia, even in the West, it is the antithesis of creativity, progress and high culture. Science and religion, red and white, aristocratic and nationality are equally opposed to this type. Disgusting any active action, driven by ideals and risky. In political terms, it corresponded to the type of chameleon and the opportunist, able to repaint under any conjuncture.

Consumer ideology has, bit by bit, discredited hard work and especially creativity, which was “poorly paid for”, ridiculed the desire for knowledge and development, imposed on people, on a wave of “anti-Stalinism,” a dependency (rent) attitude towards society and the state. This is its antisocial strength; any of its actions become a means of depreciating all that is a source of knowledge, beauty, justice.

As a result, by the end of the seventies, the Soviet "elite" came to the conclusion that it was necessary for them to convert power into property. Already at this moment, the party establishment is grouped into regional clans competing for resources; a part of large business executives wants to bring their enterprises to the world stage, turning them into transnational corporations; in the sphere of distribution, party responsibility is replaced by a vertical of illegal ("kickback") services and quasi-market positions close to scarce resources and goods. All this was made possible not least due to the flow of not earned labor, but free dollars, which opened after the construction of new oil pipelines to the West. This money received by the Soviet elites began to corrupt them.

Of those social groups that had the opportunity to travel abroad and receive income there, tens of times higher than salaries within the country, the guardsmen of the future restructuring were gradually formed. The merging of the crime, the "gray" segment of the Soviet economy (the so-called "tsekhovikov"), the newly emerging layer of speculators-acquisitors with the party and economic list, began. The main engine of perestroika was a corrupt nomenklatura, which the underground nature of its profitable activity became - reincarnates within the Soviet system dreamed of legalizing themselves and they were already morally prepared for capitulation to the West that attracted them.

If the leadership of the country had managed to transform itself until the fatal fork and put forward the ideology of sovereign memory and patriotism, as the “Russian party” had achieved, much would have been otherwise. However, this possibility was leveled from the outside by deliberately replacing concepts - according to the same model that was used by the British Empire in the early twentieth century and in the Russian and Ottoman empires. This model, conceptualized by the USSR ex-ambassador to Canada Yakovlev, was reduced at the administrative level to the dismemberment of the party into “right” and “left” fragments, and at the level of society, to a collision between the obviously non-opposing and “neo-zapadnicheskoy” soil "intellectuals, for all the mutual hostility converged, under various pretexts, in a call for the dismemberment of a single country. The first of the detachments was "delegated" lobbying for the abolition of the 6 article of the Constitution, the second - the preparation of self-determination of the RSFSR in relation to the USSR. At the same time, within the party leadership, the role of impersonation of the "right" and "left" was assigned on the one hand to Ligachev, on the other - to Yeltsin, although he and the other in essence played according to a clearly defined Yakovlev scenario.

At this stage, intellectual dissidence came on the scene as a participant in decision making, and went further than the establishment: the so-called The "law on power", prepared by the "humanist" Andrei Sakharov, in practice served as a bomb laid not only for the USSR, but also for the Russian Federation. The costs of such a "chain reaction" created unacceptable risks, including for the West (especially the risk of losing control over the nuclear potential), and the chaotic decay did not take place: the "Yakovlev model" remained in force.

The “neo-Western” wing of the active public, endowed with the role of “ramming” transformations, was self-named by the “left forces” at the agitation level, while the patriots and statesmen together with the quasi-patriots and ethnocrats were packed into the camp of the “right”, which was convenient for further discrediting the CPSU as a whole and to bookmark multi-party organizational structures. Almost immediately after the collapse of the USSR, the poles changed: the neo-westerns dominating Boris Yeltsin’s entourage adopted the self-name of the “right forces,” and put all their opponents in the red-brown one. 1993’s second confrontation contained no less disintegration potential than the “Power Law”, but this time the “instinct of self-preservation” worked from the inside, in which Yeltsin’s personal ambitions played a part: “dropping figures from the table” with hundreds of casualties in the center the capital was accompanied by legislative expansion of presidential powers. The tragedy of 1993 for a long time consolidated Russia's colonial dependence on the terms of neoliberal economic governance (the “Washington consensus”).

As a result, at the end of the "right-left game" with a change of signs, three large ideological fragments were formed in our society. First of all, these are the carriers of the “red”, Soviet ideology, a large array left after the defeat of the USSR and the CPSU, because a large number of our fellow citizens still profess the “red faith”. This, secondly, is a “white” fragment of the zealots of the former imperial forms, first of all the Russian Empire of the XVIII-XIX centuries and, as a rule, the Russian Orthodox Church. These people represent the mighty historical element that lasted in Russia for 300 with more than years of the Romanov empire, but its roots in the Moscow kingdom of Rurikovich. And, thirdly, this is a liberal fragment, connected, as we have already written, with a nihilistic excesses, the desire to destroy the “cleared” place for the so-called “normal” consumer world order built by the state officials at the previous stages of the formation of Russia. In size, this is a small, but extremely energetic, caustic, dynamic fragment that has its representatives in all areas of our state, public, and cultural life, as well as support from a global liberal project. This fragment was entitled to celebrate the victory over the Russian Empire in the 1917 year (although not for long), and over the Soviet Union 74 a year later. Three of these fragments live a bizarre life: they then interact with each other, forming strange exotic alliances, then they fight each other not for life, but for death.

After 1991, a rather complex, but quite viable symbiosis, an alliance of the Reds and the Whites, was formed, which together resisted the victorious liberalism. Created in 1992, the National Salvation Front united both communists, monarchists, and "white" nationalists and found support from the people. In the Supreme Council, under the leadership of Ruslan Khasbulatov, the Front acquired brilliant supporters who transformed all the activities of the national parliament and opposed the usurpation of power by Yeltsin in the 1993 year, went to the barricades of “Black October”, and were swept away by volleys of the Kantemirovskaya division. The liberals called this synthesis "red-brown" (they called the "brown" white component because all truly "white", pre-fevralist Russia seemed to them something threatening, reminiscent of fascism). But even after 1993, this union of people existed and continued to gain strength until the end of the 90s.

Putin, having come to power, led a part of its “white” component out of this alliance, proclaiming the revival of Russian statehood. Thus, a very exotic combination of “white” Orthodox statesmen and liberals was created in the federal structures of power, first with the overwhelming predominance of the latter. State officials, who rely on much broader public support than the advocates of “market reforms,” gradually forced the liberals out of the corridors of power, and they declared war to the “whitewashed” Putin Kremlin. What we see now is the mounting attack of the liberals on the foundations of the Russian traditional consciousness, on the Orthodox Church and on the institutions of our state.

And again the property of chameleons comes into force. Liberals are increasingly under the slogans borrowed from the "red": these are the requirements of social justice, the eradication of corruption and crime, the imposition of responsibility for non-compliance with these requirements on the current "vertical of power". And some part of the “left”, “red”, “Soviet” fragment of the Russian society is suddenly ready to follow the liberals again. Another surrogate right-left is formed, this time a “left-liberal”, “pink-blue” alliance, in the face of which Russian statesmen, first of all, “whites”, are in the minority and, in fact, in deaf defense. Most of the Bolotnaya Square was filled with people under red flags.

At the same time, another branch of political chameleons, liberals, remaining in power and controlling media, continue to defame the legacy of the Soviet era, including the great 1945 Victory of the year, and destroy the infrastructure of the domestic economy created in this era. And some "white" statesmen gradually support such a propaganda line - due to the recent and clearly outdated desire to hurt the "Soviet patriots". Liberal representatives of the clergy play a negative role here. While the overwhelming majority of Orthodox believers, the clergy and monastics stand on the “white” imperial, and some already on the synthetic, “red-white” positions.

The whole absurdity of today's historical moment is connected with only one thing - Russia does not have a clear understanding of its development path. The state is at a loss, it did not expect any backstab from the side of the wearer-consumers layer grown by them for 20 years. At the same time, there are not enough people in the state system who could oppose this generation with chameleons and cynics. The statehood itself is amazed by them, and inside our bureaucracy and the deputies' corps sits its own internal “Marsh”, which has only subsided for a while.

If you leave everything as it goes, let things go to chance, if Soviet patriots and traditionalist patriots today do not offer another development platform, consumers and acquishers will finally sell Russia, waste its resources, bring its economic and defense framework to irreversible degradation. And it will be impossible for our children and grandchildren to return her. This means that we risk not fulfilling our duty to our ancestors, who in many generations created Russia, and to the descendants who have the right to their Russia, to build and develop their tradition, and not foreign "universal" values.

7. The myth of the "Fifth Empire" as a platform for building tradition

At present, the authorities and society are objectively facing threats that strongly resemble our distant and not very distant past. The formation of bizarre alliances that will work on the de-sovereignty and further dismemberment of historical Russia is again on the agenda. In these alliances, the Nazis may come together with ethnic separatists, liberals with representatives of left-wing protest, all sorts of minorities with dictatorship supporters, "dense" orthodoxes with notorious renovationists. And all of them will be filled with hatred of the existing regime and all symbols of social peace and harmony.

All these risks will be relevant until the country overcomes the consequences of the Third Troubles, such as: the disintegration of the imperial territories and the single economy, dissolved in favor of the principles imposed on us by the "Washington consensus"; lack of social justice, which is systematically flouted and ignored, based on the hypocritical dogmas of monetarism and the ultra-liberal approach; monstrous social stratification; capital flight from an under-invested and depreciated economy; moral decay of society, the decline of traditional consciousness, education, culture; preference of oligarchic interests and motives of the comprador elite to the requirements of national security.

The primary problem of the nation is to overcome the alienation between the government and society, which cannot be achieved by private appeals to popular elements of the Russian-imperial and Soviet reality (the celebration of the millennium of statehood, the 400 anniversary of the Romanovs or the restoration of TRP norms). There is a need for a national doctrine in which a hierarchy of priorities relating to different spheres and sectors would absorb the experience of all stages of the state’s history. Russia is one and indivisible not only in space, but also in time. In this light, “red-white” unity is not a matter of a dispute about the past, but a matter of the outlines of the Russian future, which cannot but absorb all the eras of our past. Opponents of the synthesis do not spit on the past; they blacken and retard the approach of future Russia.

Today, the Fifth Empire is a myth about the future. However, we see it not as a utopia, but as a living synthesis of various historical principles, including the synthesis of valuable achievements and the true principles found within the “white” and “red” traditions of our statehood. Our desire for reconciliation is not only a tactical issue of achieving consensus. It is also a conceptual question - it is necessary to find the objectively powerful properties of our tradition, to cross strong “white genes” with strong “red genes” in order to derive a new ideology and philosophy based on them that will nourish the spirit of the new generation of statesmen. For them, the Fifth Empire from myth will become a reality, and Moscow Russia, the Petersburg Empire and the Soviet Union, moving away into historical fog, will turn into productive historical myths, inspiring collections of legends, sources of national pride and reverence before their ancestors.

From Moscow Rus, the Fifth Empire will absorb a combination of strong autocracy and powerful Zemstvo self-government. The system of Zemsky cabins, Zemstvo elders, Zemsky Sobor councils, which was created at that time, and in the cities of “black hundreds,” largely anticipated the system of councils that emerged in the 20th century. In the time of the Troubles, city and county councils were created on the basis of local governments, which constituted the Council of the whole earth. Under his leadership, the Russian militia expelled the invaders and revived the legitimate statehood. (As we see, "Soviet power" has its roots in ancient Russia.) [23] Another important principle of the Moscow kingdom, which will be inherited by Russia of the XXI century, was the principle of a symphony of spiritual and secular power. Under the new conditions, it will be implemented in legislation and the development of national strategies as a harmony of secular political principles with spiritual and moral principles, rooted in the national and religious tradition [24].

From the Petersburg period, the Fifth Empire will take a stake on the treasury industry from Peter the Great, which was seen as a motor of progressive transformations. In this sense, the Red Empire, pursuing a forced industrialization, adopted the technology of the White Empire - but only in a supermobilization, party-dictatorial format. Many wise legislative decisions that are contained in the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire will also be accepted. (In particular, the Fifth Empire will return the principle of state-territorial integrity and will not flirt with introduced and provocative ideas about the self-determination of nations.) In Russia, the XVIII-XIX centuries. the communal consciousness of Moscow Russia continued to exist, from which, strictly speaking, the strongest artel-cooperative movement “grew”. Russia continued itself in the Russian Empire - in spite of various Westernistic layers. Without a doubt, communality, along with state-socialist mobilization, should be revived at a new level in the Fifth Empire.

The Soviet Union (the Red Empire), taken at the time of its Stalinist heyday and in its later fruits, can give much to the Fifth Empire, including:

- The formulation of both the rights and freedoms and duties of a citizen in the Basic Law of the nation (the philosophy of “legal obligations” in the terminology of the Russian jurist Eurasian Alekseev is close to this).

- Preservation and protection of national wealth as a result of universal labor, including gains in a just (liberation) war.

- Military service as a public debt.

- Creating a new physical value as the basis for economic development.

- Direct connection of civic duties, professional duty with the tasks of locating and improving the productive forces.

- Exemplary ability to consolidate forces on breakthrough innovation directions, which are first distinguished in special sectors of state design, and then turn into engines of technological development throughout the country.

- The development of natural resources and the transformation of the natural environment in the interests of man, the expansion of the reasonable environment (noosphere) deep into the Earth and beyond the Earth.

- Creation and replenishment of public consumption funds that provide guarantees for universal rights to education, labor, housing, health care, recreation, pensions, and care for the infirm.

- The system of mass information and propaganda, which requires not only informational, but also transforming mental and cultural results.

So, the formula of the future statist synthesis can be defined like this: 1) strong power of the head of state combined with grassroots self-government in the image of Moscow Russia, a symphony of spiritual and political power, harmony of faith and reason + 2) the idea of ​​strict succession of power, territorial integrity and state-socialist mobilization of the Russian Empire + 3) projectivity based on conceptually meaningful people's desire for social justice, implemented in the USSR.

However, they will be in the Fifth Empire and features that do not flow directly from the past, but should become the work of today and tomorrow. These features will include:

- A policy with high self-awareness of the mission of Russia as a state of world power, a harmonizer of world relations, removing the claims of certain historical subjects to global domination. Can not say this newsBut one cannot say that Russia as a state has historically clearly formulated this mission. We see the first glimpses of this realization even among the Rurikovichs, who saw themselves as defenders of not only Orthodoxy, but also Islam and Buddhism on the land entrusted to them (the mission of the “White Tsar”). Ivan the Terrible answered the Jesuits: "We do not want the states of the whole universe." This meant that, while retaining a certain separation, the Russian kingdom impeded global unification. Then, some of the Romanovs and the whole tradition of conservative thought of the 19th century were aware of the idea of ​​a world power. In the Soviet period, the world power was implemented as the construction of an alternative global project that forced the West to change the course of its own development and to soften capitalism towards greater justice and social solidarity of its societies.

- The Fifth Empire will freely and sovereignly resolve all questions of international law, about entering into international organizations, about changing their charters and rules of the game, established without Russia. The supremacy of foreign courts over Russia or its citizens will not be recognized. The fifth empire will be independent of international criminal clans selling weapons, drugs, people, etc. Our government will not be tempted to enter into amicable collusion with these parasitic networks, and therefore such crime will be stopped not at the level of struggle with the consequences, but in its root, in the very sources of its existence.

- The bourgeois-democratic formula of “separation of powers” ​​imposed on Russia will inevitably become a thing of the past as contrary to the spirit of the national tradition. In Russia, management is traditionally divided, but not power. The Soviet political and legal doctrine, denying the “theory of separation of powers,” in this sense — with all its materialism — was deeper and closer to a thousand-year-old tradition than today's post-Soviet reception. This does not in the least deny the need for broad popular self-government in the localities, which can have various forms and naming conventions — councils, zemstvos, gatherings, the Cossack circle, kurultai, etc. In the Fifth Empire, the priority of the rights of the majority, the responsiveness of the authorities to the need for well-prepared (with a qualified campaign in the media and national discussion) referenda on issues important for the whole country should be realized.

- The nationality of the Fifth Empire will incorporate everything of value from the old imperial nationality, as well as from populism, which at the same time will be cleared of all the elements of the right-left game introduced by London. The nationality of the future will be closer in spirit to the national monarchy of Ivan Solonevich or, to the understanding of the people as the Russian forest of Leonid Leonov. This means, in particular, that the indigenous peoples of Russia will be strongly encouraged to bear children and create strong families. Western tales of the inevitability in the developed civilized environment of the so-called "demographic transition" the Fifth Empire will refute.

- In the Fifth Empire, the honorable and comprehensive mission of the religious tradition will be returned, which will embody itself in the format of imperial harmony of cultures. The fifth empire will avoid the mistakes of the synodal period, when Orthodoxy became a government department. However, even today the majority of our people, including non-believers, identify themselves with the Russian Orthodox culture and respect the Orthodox believers with respect. The Russian Orthodox Church as the most important culture-forming national institution can receive a special status in the state (such as a public law corporation) - this can be done through a referendum in order to avoid speculations of minorities hostile to Orthodoxy.

- The Eurasian brotherhood will be a new filling of ideas about the integration of former fraternal peoples. This policy has convincing reasons both in the economic and in the military-strategic spheres. The Eurasian new "brotherhood of nations" cannot be limited to the historically conditional borders of the USSR after 1945, just like the Eurasian Union cannot be a copy of the Soviet Union, only with a different ideology. It is impossible to exclude entry into the Eurasian Union as full members of some other countries of Eastern Europe and South-West Asia, even if some of them will be members of other macro-regional associations at the same time. At the same time, the civilization area of ​​the Fifth Empire is objectively determined by the Russian geopolitical core, the peoples of this union should realize the need to learn Russian as the leading language of scientific and cultural cooperation and communication, and the need in most cases to accept (or return) Cyrillic alphabets.

- The social structure of the Fifth Empire will combine the powerful principles of socialism, solidarity, cooperation with state capitalism and the market sector, which, however, will be limited to the limits laid down by planned economic policy. In other words, it will be a multi-structured, but state-regulated economy.

- The Fifth Empire will rely on science and innovative development, it will give its children the opportunity to develop their mind and will, to master all the knowledge they want. From the Soviet project, the Fifth Empire will take a lot, in particular, focus on active and productive activities, the production of new values, and not on comfort and leisure. The main vector of innovation growth will be the discovery of new possibilities of the person himself, the achievement of higher abilities and states by him. The technosphere should not obscure the task of transforming people, just as crutches and gypsum should not interfere with a person who has broken a leg to restore the ability for independent free walking.

- A person of the Fifth Empire should be healthy and long-lived, but not for the sake of health and longevity, but in order to gain maximum time from life for creativity, study of the world, self-knowledge and knowledge of God, joyful work, transfer of valuable experience gained to children and students. The new empire is to be composed not of a multitude of individual interests and appetites, but of a multitude of personal vocations and services. If there is a surplus of labor resources, it should be “dumped” not through an increase in parasitic social groups, unemployed or few working, but through the creation of new branches of production, including crafts and techniques that require high skills and redirect creative energy from punching mass products. production to create masterpieces. The fifth empire will be an empire of craftsmanship and art, which will not just decorate life, saturate it with “things”, but transform it, fill it with spiritualized images and works.

The dangers and risks of our time, the threat of the return and aggravation of the Troubles require a “new edition” of the red-white alliance - as a force, not “fixated” on the current conjuncture, not burdened by the syndrome of social envy and consumer egoism of the post-industrial period; as a force capable of pointing the authorities at its mistakes and involving potential dissent. In the contours of this alliance, we see the healthy core of a people that is internally mature enough to reconcile the hostile ideological currents of the past. Implacable, extreme, uncomfortable fighters with their own past are not included in this core, and it will be more difficult for them to find a place in the construction of the future Russia.

It is the social force and the strategic subject that draws a clear path to overcome the red-white gap, overcomes the gap within itself, sews yesterday’s poles of confrontation into a single fabric, and will be able to consistently present the civilization program of national life, its sovereignty to the people. It is this union of the heirs of the “red” and “white” traditions, the generation of heirs who reconcile their fathers and grandfathers in themselves, relying on the invaluable experience of our past, is able not only to expose the destroyers and opponents of our country, but also to show how we differ from them in fact.

We are different in the very ideals of the meaning of life, and this, as we see it, has already been shown by history. Our sense of life is the forging of the human soul in new generations, the preservation and development of humanity in people, the introduction of the laws of "life is godly" in social, cultural, international relations, in preserving and upholding social and spiritual ideals, that is, in human nature and history.

Their meaning of life is in stable growth of consumption and needs, in the dictatorship of selfish individuals, in the cult of idleness and comfort, achieved on the basis of unequal "competition", in substitution and turning over of spiritual values, in the emancipation of all kinds, including perverted, passions , that is, ultimately, in the dehumanization of culture.

The story is not over, the struggle of civilizations continues.

________________________________________

[1] In Russia, after 1917, the Bolsheviks were the first to call red. The left-wing socialist movements (the Social Revolutionaries and Mensheviks) practically did not fall into this category. Behind them the name "Ninists" slogan "with either whites or Bolsheviks" was affirmed. The left, claiming the role of a third force, was never able to become it, almost completely “giving up” the masses “red” to the Bolsheviks.

[2] For example, when discussing the division of Russia into zones of influence (Paris, 23 December 1917), representatives of the Entente countries, busily marking the borders of the occupation zones, offered to promote the funds of Jewish public organizations to promote the monarchist South-Russian Union of Kaledin-Alekseev. As follows from the documents of the archive of Lord Alfred Milner: "Lord Cecil ... noted the enormous difficulty in obtaining ruble currency to finance southern Russia and suggested using the Jews of Odessa and Kiev for this through the friendly Jews of Western Europe, like the Zionists."

[3] At the same time, Rasputin was “exposed” by many right-wing monarchists, including V.Purishkevich, who participated in the murder. At the same time, part of the monarchist deputies of the State Duma formed a faction of "progressive nationalists", which joined the pro-liberal Pro-bloc bloc.

[4] They will not succeed, however, in calculating the preparation of the Brest Peace. After the conclusion of this treaty, Germany will launch a powerful offensive, and those plans that Lord Cecil and Marshal Foch discussed in Paris will burn with a blue flame. After that, emergency measures are taken: self-governing-Socialist-Revolutionaries, including Narodnaya Volya veteran Mark Nathanson (a symbolic figure in the right-and-right game against Russia), will try to make a coup. At the same time, there was a second scenario where Reilly was involved (Lockcard plot). The revolution's producer Parvus will suddenly want to get rid of the leadership of the Bolsheviks, but he will not receive support in Berlin.

[5] The concepts of "leftist", "leftism" were interpreted in Soviet dictionaries in the spirit that the leftist covers his opportunist, compromising nature with radical revolutionism. In our opinion, this interpretation is a deep and still relevant meaning.

[6] At the same time, in the 1920s, the “white” emigration has significantly improved, there are quite strong monarchist organizations, such as, for example, the Russian Imperial Union-Order (RISO). It was a kind of sobering up, a logical result of the reassessment of values ​​after the revolutionary disasters.

[7] If the conspiracy theorists who put the “red banner” to the brand “shield” of the Rothschild family are right, then this does not explain everything in our “red tradition”. As well as the reference to the red flags of pirate filibusters reflects only the cultural consciousness of Western Europe. For the Russian cultural consciousness, the Rothschild emblem did not mean anything, whereas the flags of Dmitry Donskoy were recorded in genetic memory. Revolutionary ideologues put their “bookish” meanings into paper cloths, while the people put their original intuitions.

[8] A kind of theorist of anti-oligarchic autocracy was the favorite writer of Nicholas II, Lieutenant-General A. D. Nechvolodov, (1864-1938). Better known as the author of historical works, he also wrote the work "From Ruin to Sufficiency" (St. Petersburg, 1906) and "Russian Money" (St. Petersburg, 1907), in which he substantiated the project to prevent "usury of the world" by replacing it in the autocratic State of gold money on paper. The money was offered to be untied from bank houses and tied exclusively to a sovereign state managing the issue and conducting a meaningful strategy of social and economic transformations.

[9] In 60-ies, Kuusinen and Andropov created under the Central Committee a group of young intellectual consultants, which included such iconic figures as Fyodor Burlatsky, Georgy Arbatov, Alexander Bovin (future speech writer Brezhnev), George Shakhnazarov, etc. the basis of the romanticization of the old Comintern and the left movement, which Kuusinen offered to his students, lays the mental foundations of the future “perestroika” and “reformation” of 90's.

[10] At the same time, other human rights advocates unanimously with foreign advocates of armed separatism (A.Gluksmann, B.-A.Levi and others) not only did not object to this, but, on the contrary, became more and more “fifth column”, anti-russian.

[11] At the same time, we would like to draw attention to the fact that the conservative part of the society itself, which for the most part recognizes the strangeness of the “swamp” opposition in Russia, is disappointed by the unresolved concessions to the outside world - from army reform to joining the WTO, from the CIS crisis to the costs of housing and communal deregulation.

[12] The term “White Tsar” in relation to Russian sovereigns has been used since at least the 16th century, beginning with Ivan the Terrible.

[13] As an illustration of the then sentiments in high society, we can cite a real state-socialist program, which was made by Grand Duke Kirill Vladimirovich, by issuing it as a project of a throne speech (1916). (His program was analyzed in detail in a study by V.V. Khutarev-Garnishevsky “Saving the Empire. The Grand Prince Kirill Vladimirovich’s Anti-Crisis Program.”) Kirill Vladimirovich’s program planned to introduce a state monopoly of all banking and insurance activities with compulsory lowering of interest on domestic loans as well as the monopoly of foreign trade. The Grand Duke offered to introduce universal labor service of the Russian population from 16 to 60 years, insisted on establishing the most severe control over the production and distribution of essential products (matches and bread), suggested equating speculation and artificial shortage to looting, completely nationalizing railways, mining metals, oil, coal and cotton, deforestation, sugar production, to ensure the state’s monopoly on the grain trade, create a state-owned network of elevators, warehouses and grain storage lishch, etc. One can argue about the purpose for which the Grand Duke flirted with the "red" theme (it is known that in March 1917 he will go public with a red bow), in any case, this was a deliberate expression of his ambitions for power, and not something extravagant.

[14] Lenin eventually arrived at a revision of orthodox Marxism, calling for a revolution, not waiting for Russia to achieve "a sufficient level of development of capitalism" in such a paradoxical manner as distinctive Narodism manifested itself in its tough criticism.

[15] Nikolai Potapov - in 1917, the head of the General Directorate General Staff (GUGSH), the former head of the Imperial Military Intelligence (Quartermaster General). Subsequently, he was one of the key figures of Operation Trust, worked in the OGPU and the General Staff of the Red Army, was one of the founders of the GRU. He was not touched by the “Stalinist repressions” - in 1936 he received the rank of commander of the Red Army, in 1938 he went to the reserve by age and died in honor in 1946 year. Together with him, the future Soviet commanders and intelligence officers were trained - supervised? - such royal officers as P.I. Dyakonov, A.A. Yakushev, A.N. Kovalevsky, A.A. Samoylo ​​and others. (In general, during the years of the Civil War, the Tsarist intelligence was divided approximately in half: half went to the whites, the other remained with the red ones.).

[16] For the first time in Soviet science, people began to write about this already in the era of perestroika, before it was impermissible - see: Pantin I.К., Plimak E.G., Khoros V.G. Revolutionary tradition in Russia. - M., 1986.

[17] Back in 1930, in response to a complaint of D. Bedniy, Stalin, in a personal letter, accused him of Russophobia and "slandering our people."

[18] In the Stalinist understanding, the economic and social should be subject to the state-political. The leader of the Bulgarian communists, Georgi Dimitrov, in his diaries, recalls that the leader of the USSR put the question precisely like this “through social liberation to national independence.”

[19] Personal Secret Service I.V. Stalin. Collection of documents / Comp. Vakhania V.V. M., 2004. C. 416.

[20] The meaning of this messianic "middle class" project was carefully studied in Russia, starting with Pushkin, Gogol said, recalling Pushkin’s words: "What is the United States? Dead, it’s not like a man weathered" .

[21] There were features in this reincarnation that directly pointed to the subversive nature of the transformation that was taking place - this concerned not only the desertification of villages, but also the demography of the indigenous peoples of Russia. It was under Khrushchev that an unprecedented demographic genocide began, expressed in mass abortions (forbidden under Stalin), the transition to a one-child family model, the assertion of a mass neurosis motivated by the philistine thesis: "why produce poverty?" Domestic egoism and consumerism under Soviet conditions meant nothing more than the undermining of the vital forces of Russian and other indigenous peoples of Russia, the destruction of its centuries-old landmarks, verified by history, and not at all concern for its prosperity. As a result, by the end of the Soviet period, there was a big imbalance between the "large" Asian and "small" European regions of the USSR.

[22] At the same time, it is necessary to recognize: the eternal anthropological type. To get rid of it can not and should not. However, the mission of a healthy state and high culture is precisely to support social types of aristocratic in spirit: the inventor, creator, seeker, prophet, not to let the acquiring, accumulators, pragmatists and cynics destroy the aggressive environment, called for true freedom. Otherwise, the terrible will happen: the meaning of liberation will be reduced to general accessibility, to a "common place", to faceless emancipation, and there will be no place for creative and healing forces in the people. The struggle of "inventors" and "acquirers" on both sides is fierce. But there is something more terrible than blood and violence - the loss of the meaning of life, the idiocy of bad infinity, the substitution of any developmental goals and the achievement of human and higher justice with the goals of consolidating and perpetuating the parasitic world order, guaranteeing its maximum comfort and painlessness. In a healthy society, the consumer has the right to exist, but in essence he has no vocation for social success, honor or glory, which are always associated with self-sacrifice, with self-sacrifice. Accordingly, a society that cultivates consumers, money-givers and ordinary people as a social reference point is on the verge of entropy and self-destruction.

[23] In the middle of the twentieth century, the so-called "Young Russians", from the standpoint of the experience of emigration and at the same time based on Soviet experience, put forward the formula "Tsar and Soviets", which still remains misunderstood and deepest in the degree of political-historical synthesis.

[24] Many fundamental things are not based on critical thinking, not on scientific thought, but on faith, which is passed on to descendants from predecessors. The symphony of the spiritual and political will reflect in itself the harmony of faith and reason, to which the Fifth Empire will be directed.
Originator:
http://agenda-u.org/
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

62 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in