Lev Tikhomirov, in his work "Monarchic Statehood", written at the beginning of the 20th century and which gave a theoretical justification to the monarchical principle, wrote the following: "Humanity does not always correctly guess what it is going to. The history of Greece, according to the common conviction of all its political people and citizens , was a process of development of democracy. And meanwhile, it actually ended with the world monarchy of Alexander the Great, who was the representative of the cultural cause prepared by the previous period of the development of democracy. Such an outcome was not expected by the Greeks either under Themistocles or under Pericles. Even the valiant Republicans of Rome during the Punic Wars of the coming appearance of Caesar and Augustus".

According to polls public opinion, about 20% of the citizens of modern Russia are ready to support the revival of the monarchy. It is possible, however, that by "monarchy" each of the respondents understands something of his own. The range of opinions on this issue is extremely wide. For some, a constitutional monarchy, quite decorative, is preferable: as a kind of symbol capable of stabilizing political life in the country and emphasizing the historical continuity of eras. Others, on the contrary, long for a return to the autocratic system, they are waiting for an all-powerful Caesar, who will ensure the necessary centralization of power, cleanse Augean stables"democracy", will restore the international status of Russia, having arranged within the country a kind of kingdom of justice.

I remember that the hero of the novel by Mikhail Bulgakov, having seen enough of the art of the Petliurists, exclaimed in his hearts: “I am a monarchist by my convictions. this moment Bolsheviks are required here ... "Now you can hear something else:" I am a socialist by conviction, but without a wise and strong tsar, Russia will not get out of the quagmire ... "

The editor of the portal "Pravaya.ru", historian Alexander Eliseev once in his article "The Tsar and the Soviets!" ("Zavtra" No. 47, 2007) wrote as follows: "... Autocracy and self-government - this is the formula of dialectical synthesis, with the help of which it is possible to revive the original Russian government at a new level."

Today's monarchist movement is contradictory and heterogeneous. On it lies a projection of the mysteries and paradoxes of the Renunciation that took place in March 1917. The religious meaning of the termination and restoration of the monarchy in Russia is obvious to very many Orthodox believers, although it is not recognized by all.

The ideological, spiritual and political shades of monarchical consciousness are superimposed on unresolved questions about possible way establishment of a monarchy in Russia.

Modern Russian monarchists are divided into two main groups: the so-called "Soborians" and "Legitimists". That is, for the supporters of the election of a new tsar who was not bound by any dynastic preferences at the Council, and for the supporters of the Romanov dynasty.

The first at the very beginning of the 90s took shape in a fairly powerful movement advocating the convening of a new All-Russian Zemsky Sobor where the future king will be elected. At the origins of this movement was the monarchist and populist Vyacheslav Klykov, who advocated the advent of a new ruling dynasty, namely - for the descendants of the Soviet Marshal Georgy Zhukov. After the Gaidar reforms and executions in 1993, the public euphoria caused by perestroika ended. Together with it, the activity of the cathedral monarchists also came to naught.

As for the "legitimists", here we see several currents oriented towards different competing branches of the Romanov dynasty, whose representatives were born and live outside of Russia and are engaged in "dynastic disputes". However, today European monarchs and representatives of the ruling houses that have lost their thrones recognize the right of inheritance only for the Kirillovichs, who are well known among us.

Heir to the Russian throne, son of Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna and Prince of Prussia Franz Wilhelm Hohenzollern, Grand Duke of Russia George - the youngest of the Kirillovichi. He was born in 1981 in Madrid, where he still lives today. On his father's side, he is the great-great-grandson of the German Emperor Wilhelm II, on his mother's side, he is the great-great-great-grandson of the Russian Emperor Alexander II. George's native language is French, although he can easily speak and read Spanish, English and Russian.

Prince George, in his less than thirty years, managed to study at Oxford, work in the European Parliament, and then in the European Commission's nuclear safety agency in Luxembourg. Since the year before last, he has been working as an adviser CEO of the Norilsk Nickel company, representing this Russian corporation at the Nickel Institute (Brussels, Belgium).

Grand Duke George kindly agreed to talk with representatives of the Zavtra newspaper. The personality and views of the heir to the Romanov family will undoubtedly be of interest to most of our readers.

"TOMORROW". Your Highness, as the Heir of the Imperial House, do you think of yourself as a potential monarch?

GRAND DUKE GEORGE MIKHAILOVICH. The status of the Head of the Imperial House, which is currently my mother Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, and her heir, of course, contains the opportunity sometime in the future to lead not only the dynasty, but also your country. Of course, this can only happen if the monarchical principle is again demanded by the Russian people. If the day comes when I am called to this ministry, I will not turn away from it. But in the present, like all the sovereigns of our House in exile: my great-grandfather, grandfather and my mother - I try to live according to the well-known principle "Do what you must, and come what may." It would be foolish to sit and dream: "What will I do if I ascend the throne"? I try to be useful to my Motherland in the position I am in now, to help my mother in the performance of her duty and to accumulate professional experience and knowledge that will be useful in any case.

"TOMORROW". How, in your opinion, could the monarchical idea be implemented in modern conditions?

VC. To restore the monarchy, a conscious and free expression of the will of the people is necessary. I am sure that if the people receive honest and objective information, they will draw the right conclusions and choose what suits their true national interests. History shows that the mechanical majority is often wrong. But if the people feel themselves not as a "mass" and not as a "population", but as a set of individuals united by common values, respecting their ancestors and themselves, wishing that this respect be preserved by the next generations, then the people will not make a mistake. Agree that the revival of the monarchy after the Troubles of the 17th century, the 400th anniversary of the end of which we will soon celebrate, clearly illustrates my words.

"TOMORROW". Can the Russian Monarchy take place outside the Empire, within the framework of a local " nation state"?

VC. In the foreseeable future, I do not see any prerequisites for Russia to lose its multinational character, regardless of the type of its state structure. But if you think theoretically ... The real Empire is not a system of oppression by one nation of others, but a family of fraternal peoples united common goals and interests that preserve unity in diversity. Russia was originally a multinational state and throughout its history has sought to integrate peoples into a single Empire. But, along with this, in our past there were periods when centrifugal forces prevailed. In time to revive centralized state succeeded the Moscow principality, initially very small and inferior in influence even to other similar "local nation-states". The reason for this, in my opinion, is that the Muscovite sovereigns, on the one hand, managed to uphold the firm monarchical principle, and on the other hand, their policy was quite flexible and modern. Yes, they knew how to compromise, and at the same time did not betray the main thing and for several generations they were strategically preparing the unification and liberation of their country. In our time, Russia, indeed, due to the grave consequences of several revolutions of the twentieth century, has been thrown far back. But, I repeat, I am convinced that we will never reach the "local nation state". On the contrary, I believe that Russia has a chance not only to maintain its current territorial integrity, but also to attract fraternal peoples of the former Russian Empire to renewed forms of integration. I understand perfectly well that it will not be a pre-revolutionary Empire and not the USSR. However, turning to the best examples from the past will allow us to save at least a single civilizational space.

"TOMORROW". Many current conservative models begin with the obligatory defamation of the Soviet period. In your vision, what is the restoration of the monarchy in Russia? Political revenge or a kind of avant-garde project for the Russian future? Restoration or an attempt to unite the nation, taking into account the Soviet experience?

VC. A very serious question. The restoration of the monarchy can by no means be revenge. Emperor Nicholas II abdicated precisely in the hope of reconciling everyone and preventing fratricide. The Russian Imperial House did not take part in civil war when she did break out. We are neither "Red" nor "White", and we cannot have revanchist sentiments. The revolution is a terrible national tragedy. Our Dynasty suffered greatly from it. But our entire people also suffered, including the direct creators and participants in the revolution on both sides. If our thoughts and desires are directed to the future, we must stop reopening old wounds and remembering insults to each other. My mother constantly urges her compatriots to look not for what divides, but for what brings us all together. If we want to return Russia to its place in the world, we need not continue to blame each other, but learn to forgive and ask for forgiveness. And move forward with benevolence and solidarity, not with hatred and revenge.

Monarchy is the idea of ​​true popular unity. Being legal and hereditary, that is, continuous in historical time, it unites the citizens of the country not only for the sake of some momentary goals, but on the basis of centuries-old traditions, in the name of the present and for the sake of the future. The monarchy is obliged to take into account any experience - both positive and negative. Indeed, nothing should be forgotten in order to avoid a repetition of evil. It is necessary to give a moral and legal assessment of the events of the past. For example, nothing can justify the militant God-fighting character totalitarian regimes and the class or racial genocide perpetrated by them, when millions of people were exterminated for what they could not change under any circumstances - for their national or social background. But, condemning crimes and mistakes, one should not throw out the child with dirty water. AT Soviet period there was a lot of light and heroism in the life of our people. My great-grandfather Sovereign Kirill Vladimirovich and my grandfather Sovereign Vladimir Kirillovich have always called for a clear distinction between the godless and inhuman Marxist-Leninist ideology and the creativity of the people's spirit, which breaks any shackles.

The Russian Imperial House is confident that the monarchy is a modern and progressive state system that has a future. He is capable of synthesizing the positive experience of all periods of our history, including the Soviet one. Even my great-grandfather, in one of his appeals, expressed a very correct idea: "It is not necessary to destroy any institutions caused by life, but it is necessary to turn away from those of them that defile the human soul." I fully share this point of view. That is my position.

"TOMORROW". The monarchical project must inevitably rely on the layer of "sovereign people". From what strata of society, in your opinion, should recruitment come from? Oligarchs, army, intelligentsia, etc.

VC. Monarchy is a national idea. It cannot rely on any separate classes and social groups. One of the main advantages of a legitimate hereditary monarchy is that in this system the head of state does not owe his power to anyone but God. And therefore he is able to be a true Arbiter, the Father of the nation, to whom all members of his family are equally dear. The monarchy must have support in all strata of society. Of course, the state is inconceivable without a hierarchical structure. Another thing is that the ruling layer must be constantly updated and replenished. the best representatives all social strata and groups. And these strata and groups themselves should be given the opportunity to adequately take their place in the rule of law and civil society, having all the necessary rights and obligations.

"TOMORROW". Your ancestors are Tsars and Emperors. Do you feel your specialness, involvement in the history of your family, relatively speaking: do you have dreams about the past of the dynasty?

VC. Dreams... I don't dream, but I certainly feel the involvement, as, probably, any person feels a connection with his ancestors. Even if he doesn't think about it, there is, after all, genetics. Our ancestors left the earthly world, but some part of them continues to live in us, to influence our character, temperament, and, consequently, our actions. The feeling of belonging to one's family encourages self-discipline. We must try to behave in such a way as not to disgrace our ancestors, and so that our descendants will not be ashamed of us.

"TOMORROW". Does the role of the Heir of the House bother you, does your status interfere in life?

VC. Yeah... A negative answer to your question would mean frivolity, and a positive one would mean excessive pride. In reality, any position related to other people's trust in you and their hopes is not an easy burden. But, at the same time, it inspires and allows you to survive in difficult life situations. I cannot say that my position weighs me down. But I understand that this is a big responsibility. I have the right to privacy, especially since I currently have no public duties. But I still can't do much of what private individuals do. My mother and grandfather and grandmother, with their upbringing, laid a kind of traffic light in my mind. Even if the thought arises: “Why, after all, should I do or not do this and that?”, then suddenly a red light is lit. Sometimes it is humanly annoying that maybe I missed some opportunities, but then, after time and on sound reasoning, I am convinced that self-restraint in most cases was correct and useful. God arranged our world in such a way that everything in life is balanced, so you should never complain about fate.

"TOMORROW". Do you have any preferences in Russian history, favorite heroes or anti-heroes?

VC. I like a calm and confident style of government Alexander III. Under him, Russia was a real superpower, whose power was based not on fear and hostility, but on sincere respect. When he died, even the geopolitical opponents of our country paid tribute to him, because he was the guarantor of international balance. I believe that John III, who in 1480 was destined to put an end to the foreign yoke in a peaceful way, was undeservedly overlooked. But it is he who is the father of the sovereignty of our state. Sovereigns like John III may not have become famous for great battles and grandiose reforms, but in reality they did more for the country than many bright rulers. In general, the main character Russian history of course is our people. They were often sacrificed for the sake of imaginary "state interests". But what are these interests and whose are they, if millions of people are sacrificed for their sake? The real heroes are not those who spectacularly won the struggle for power, killing their fellow citizens without counting, but those who achieved success, saving human lives as much as possible. And when there really is a threat to national existence, our people do not need to be persuaded to make sacrifices. An example of this is all wars, from the campaigns of Oleg and Svyatoslav to the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945.

The question of the role of the popular masses in history is one of the fundamental questions of the Marxist-Leninist worldview and the science of society; at the same time it is one of the fundamental questions of the policy of the Communist Party.
Around the question of the role of the popular masses in history, always, and especially in our era, the era socialist revolution, the sharpest ideological and political struggle between the forces of progress and reaction was seething and seething.
The role of the popular masses as the creator of history was first elucidated and scientifically substantiated by Marx and Engels. Having extended the provisions of dialectical materialism to the phenomena of social life, Marx and Engels created historical materialism - the science of general laws development of society. Historical materialism has completely overcome the denial and belittling of the role of the popular masses in history and has revealed their decisive role in the progressive development of society.
Pre-Marxian sociology was dominated by the view that history is created not by the masses of the people, but by individual outstanding personalities - heroes, kings, generals, legislators, inventors, scientists, philosophers, etc. The masses, in fact, were considered only as an object of activity of the generals and legislators, or as a blind instrument of the "world spirit", "divine providence", and not as an independent subject of historical action.
The view that denies the decisive role of the popular masses in history is very tenacious, because it has its own class and epistemological roots. The social basis of this view is the division of society into classes of exploiters and exploited and the oppressed position of the working masses. This view has been spreading and entrenched in consciousness for centuries, throughout the history of the three antagonistic social formations- slaveholding, feudal and capitalist.
The epistemological roots of this view are in the idealistic understanding of history, which sees the root cause and determining the driving force of the history of society in ideas, and not in the conditions of people's material life, not in the development of production methods.
The creators of this view are the ideologists of the exploiting classes: slave owners, feudal lords, the bourgeoisie, and also the petty bourgeoisie. People of mental labor, representatives of the commanding classes, they considered their ideas, theories, views that dominated society as the determining force of history. They saw that ideas guide people's activities, but they did not understand that ideas, theories, and views themselves are a product and reflection of the material conditions of people's lives.
These idealistic, reactionary views, belittling, belittling and denying the independent, progressive, creative role of the popular masses in history, were most consistently developed by philosophers, sociologists, economists and historians, who stood on the basis of philosophical idealism and religion. Idealist philosopher Plato, medieval theologians Thomas Aquinas and others, Bishops Bossuet and Berkeley, Joseph de Maistre, modern philosophical idealists - followers of Plato, Thomas Aquinas, Berkeley, Joseph de Maistre, neo-Hegelians, neo-Kantians, pragmatists, intuitionists, Nietzscheans, etc. The workers are considered as a passive mass, opposed and hostile to the spirit, reason, civilization, culture, incapable of independent rational historical action.
Theologians Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Bishop Bossuet portrayed history as the implementation of the wise "divine will", and the peoples, their actions and struggle - as an instrument of this mysterious "divine will". Theologians explain the disasters of mankind, the suffering of the masses in the conditions of antagonistic social formations by the machinations of the devil, who seeks to seduce peoples from the true divine path, and God's punishment for the "sins" of people, especially for the attempts of the masses to free themselves from oppression, to rise up against their oppressors and enslavers. . The views of theologians on represent scientific interest, and we therefore do not dwell on them here.
But even among the idealists there were still individual thinkers (for example, D. Vico, J.-J. Rousseau), who were sympathetic to the masses and noted them progressive role in public life.
Vico lived and developed his views in Italy at a time when the indignation of the masses against social and foreign national oppression was growing. In his theory, he developed the idea of ​​social cycles. At the same time, he proceeded from religious idea about what rules the world higher intelligence”, which stands above the mind of individuals and nations and determines the course of history. Vico was very sympathetic to the struggle of the plebeian masses against the patricians, the aristocracy, and emphasized the role of the masses of the people not only in the development of the state, but also in spiritual life, in particular in the creation of the epic.
Rousseau lived and worked on the eve of the French bourgeois revolution of 1789 and developed the ideas of the sovereignty of the people, their right to change the social and political system, to revolt against the oppressors and enslavers.
The ideologists of the revolutionary bourgeoisie, represented by the French enlighteners of the 18th century, subjected the feudal system and its ideology to all-round criticism, ridiculed and exposed the feudal monarchs as tyrants and despots, proclaimed the slogan of freedom, equality and fraternity. But even they considered the masses not the subject of history, not its creator, but its object. From the point of view of the 18th century enlighteners, "the history of mankind through the ages is the history of its oppression by a bunch of swindlers," as Diderot wrote. The fact of the oppression of the working masses is correctly stated here. But the enlighteners saw the cause of slavery and despotism not in the economic conditions of the development of society, but in the ignorance of the masses. “Despotism, that cruel scourge of humanity, is most often the product of popular ignorance. Every nation is free in the beginning. How to explain the loss of their freedom? His ignorance, his stupid trust in the ambitious,” wrote the materialist Helvetius. Therefore, from the point of view of enlighteners, it is enough to enlighten people, and the kingdom of freedom, equality and justice will immediately come. And who should enlighten people? Of course educated people, educators, intelligentsia, supported by the will of the wise legislators. Hence the hopes of many educators for Lucky case, on the appearance of a great man, an enlightened monarch.
The French enlighteners of the 18th century were characterized by a bourgeois-idealistic view, according to which the "ignorant" masses of the people are not capable of independent historical creativity, they are led by enlightened people. “Opinions rule the world,” said the French enlighteners. And from here it follows logically that the creators of history are enlightened people, whom the people, the “crowd”, can only follow.
The views of the bourgeois enlighteners were directed against the feudal system, against the feudal state, religion, and church. Therefore, at one time they had a progressive value. But from a scientific point of view, these views on the history of society are untenable, idealistic and metaphysical.
The sociological views of the utopian socialists of the 18th and 19th centuries are directly adjacent to the ideas of the enlighteners of the 18th century. But the utopian socialists were closer to the working, exploited masses. Their social theories are imbued with sympathy and concern for the masses of the people who are under the yoke of exploitation and forced labor. The utopian socialists approached a deeper understanding of the causes of the misfortunes of the masses, their poverty and oppression, and consequently, approached a deeper understanding of the driving forces of history.
Enlighteners of the XVIII century, as the ideologists of the bourgeoisie, considered the bourgeois private property as the eternal and natural state of mankind, as something rooted in the very nature of man. The utopian socialists, on the contrary, correctly saw the source of oppression, enslavement and exploitation of the masses in private ownership of the means of production. They saw private property as the main source of social inequality, oppression and injustice. Their views were a step forward compared with the views of the Enlightenment. But the utopian socialists considered the emergence of private property not as a historically natural social phenomenon, not as a necessary step in the development of society, but as a kind of fall of mankind, as an accidental deviation from the right path as a result of ignorance of the true nature of man by legislators. The eighteenth-century French utopian socialist Morelli wrote in his book The Code of Nature that many philosophers, legislators and statesmen consider the vices of society as the fatal destiny of mankind, losing sight of main reason all human disasters. This reason lies in private property, which is contrary to the "nature" of man. That is why, ironically remarks Morelli, various "transformers of the human race" perceived the fatal errors of the first legislators and constantly multiplied them.
From such a typically enlightening, idealistic view of the course of history, the utopian view naturally followed that humanity needed a true hero, a legislator who could govern the people according to the “true nature of man”. The majority of utopian socialists expected the realization of socialism from the "powerful people" - from enlightened monarchs, wise legislators, wealthy philanthropists. They should be convinced of the justice of the plans for the socialist restructuring of society, and they will set about implementing these plans in order to make suffering humanity happy and thereby glorify themselves, and along with them the inventors of various social systems. These utopian socialists wanted to create universal happiness on earth, to realize the socialist system, but without the active struggle of the working masses themselves, without the revolutionary struggle of the working class. Most of the utopian socialists of the 18th and early 19th centuries saw in the working people only an oppressed, suffering mass, incapable of independent historical creativity. With socialist ideas, they addressed not the working class, but to all classes equally, and some, such as Saint-Simon and Fourier, even predominantly to the wealthy and educated classes. Saint-Simon preached that a new society would be created on the basis of the new religion- "new Christianity" - and this society should be managed by scientists, engineers and industrialists, that is, the bourgeois intelligentsia and capitalists.
True, among the utopian socialists there was another, revolutionary-democratic trend, represented by the names of the German utopian socialists - the leader peasant war of the 16th century in Germany, Thomas Müntzer and the utopian of the 19th century Weitling, the English revolutionary-democrat, the ideologist of the Diggers during the English bourgeois revolution of the 17th century J. Winstanley, the French utopian socialists and revolutionary democrats - Mellier, Mably, Babeuf, Desami, Blanqui, brilliant a galaxy of revolutionary democrats in Russia - Belinsky, Herzen, Ogaryov, Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov, Pisarev, Shevchenko, Lesya Ukrainka, Ivan Franko, Nalbandian, Akhundov, as well as revolutionary democrats from China, India, the USA, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Poland, Italy, Turkey and other countries.
Among the utopian socialists of the 18th century, the ideas of revolutionary democracy and people's power were vividly and deeply expressed by Babeuf. Having adopted the revolutionary, democratic and socialist ideas of their predecessors, Babeuf and his followers enriched them with the experience of the French bourgeois revolution. If Mellier limited himself to a general call for an uprising of the working people, while Mably and Morelli did not at all raise the question of revolution, then the Babouvists put the question of a popular revolutionary uprising at the center of their doctrine and program of their activity.
All people, Babeuf taught after his predecessors, have the right to happiness, and this is the goal of their association in society. However, this happiness is nowhere to be found. The natural right of people is not realized in civil laws. Inequality reigns everywhere, the cause of which lies in private property. Private property and inequality are supported by a selfish conspiracy of one part of society against another - the haves, the patricians, against the have-nots, the plebeians. The ignorance of the masses ensures the success of the conspiracy of the oppressors. This conspiracy can only be overthrown by the force of revolution. The uprising of the people must be organized by a secret society of its true friends and defenders - a "conspiracy of equals" in the name of equality.
Babouvists viewed the history of society as a history of continuous struggle between rich and poor, patricians and plebeians. This struggle has been going on continuously since the desire of some to live at the expense of others appeared. If a mass of people is deprived of the opportunity to exist and does not possess anything, then a revolution in the property system becomes inevitable.
The expropriated masses will inevitably strive to overthrow the social order that oppresses them and to establish a communist system. The uprising of the oppressed against the oppressors usually flares up when the majority has been reduced to an unbearable position. The French Revolution, which went forward until 9 Thermidor and then went back, did not give a final victory to the poor, was not brought to an end. Therefore, nothing has been done to ensure people's happiness. The revolution must be continued until it gives victory to the people and finds its consummation in the complete emancipation of the people.
Babeuf and his followers developed a whole program of revolutionary measures for the liberation of the people. They put forward the idea of ​​a revolutionary dictatorship of the working people, arming the revolutionary people and disarming the propertied classes, the enemies of the people's revolution.
The Babouvists did not and could not have a scientific understanding historical role the proletariat as a special social class. They did not single out the proletariat from the rest of the poor masses and did not see its historical tasks. The Babouvist secret society, which prepared the revolutionary uprising, was far from the tasks political party the proletariat. The people, wrote Buonarotti, Babeuf's comrade-in-arms and successor of his ideas, are little able at the beginning of the revolution to elect people suitable for leading and completing it. Therefore, in the interests of the sovereignty of the people, care must be taken not so much to collect votes as to transfer the supreme power into the hands of wise and firm revolutionaries. Babouvists put forward the idea of ​​dictatorship of the most conscious part of the people, which at that time was a small minority. From this followed the traits of conspiracy in the Babouvist movement, due to the vagueness of the class self-consciousness of the French workers and the underdevelopment of the proletarian class itself at the end of the 18th and into early XIX century.
Outstanding French Revolutionary mid-nineteenth century, Marx's contemporary O. Blanqui developed Babeuf's ideas. He also recognized the need for the revolutionary overthrow of the exploiting classes and sought to implement the revolutionary dictatorship of the people. He even put forward the slogan of the dictatorship of the proletariat, but he could not substantiate this slogan scientifically, for he remained an idealist in understanding the driving forces of history. Blanqui failed to understand the objective laws of history. In his tactics, he proceeded from idealistic views, and not from the scientific theory of the class struggle. He wanted to carry out the revolution not through an uprising of the popular masses, but through a conspiracy and an uprising of secret revolutionary organizations. It doomed him revolutionary activity to failure.
In Germany, the theoretician of utopian communism, who recognized the need for a revolutionary struggle of the working masses, was W. Weitling, who grew up in a semi-proletarian environment of the handicraft poor. Having accepted the ideas of the French utopian socialist Fourier, Weitling at the same time understood that the phalanstery and associations projected by Fourier were not capable of improving the situation of the poorest and most numerous class; this can only be done by a revolution - the overthrow of the entire old system. According to Fourier's project, income in the association should be distributed according to labor, capital and talent; consequently, unearned incomes and class inequalities persist in associations. And where class inequality exists, different class interests and class contradictions are inevitable.
Weitling taught that political revolution must be supplemented by a social revolution. The main role in the revolution must be played by the revolutionary army of the working people, the poor; after its first victory, it announces the establishment of a new society, elects a provisional government, arms the workers and artisans and disarms the bourgeoisie, settles the poor in the houses of the rich, etc. Weitling opposed the agreement of the poor with their enemies - the propertied classes. He pointed out that the oppressed masses should rely "only on their own sword", "choose their own leaders", without stopping their gaze on the "rich and noble". Weitling saw the reasons for the defeat of revolutionary uprisings in the fact that the people spared their enemies - the rich, protected their property, as was the case during the Lyon uprising, or granted them voting rights, as was the case during the revolution of 1848.
Along with these deep ideas, generalizing the experience of the revolutionary struggle of the working people, in the teachings of Weitling, the ideas of Saint-Simon found a place for themselves that philosophers, scientists, geniuses and a kind of “new messiah” who will come “... from sword in hand and carry out the teachings of the first. Thanks to his courage, he will become the head of the revolutionary army and with it will destroy the rotten building of the old social order, will carry away all the streams of bitter tears into the sea of ​​oblivion and will establish paradise on earth. This was reflected in the well-known distrust of the ideologist of utopian communism in the initiative of the working masses, as well as in the consciousness of the weakness, disorganization and inability of the masses of the then artisans, who were not yet led by the industrial proletariat, to accomplish their emancipation with their own hands.
Despite all the shortcomings, naivety and fantasy in Weitling's ideology, Marx and Engels considered Weitling communism as the first independent theoretical movement of the German proletariat, as incomparable in the previous history of Germany "brilliant literary debut German workers" who have just entered the arena of the historical struggle against the bourgeoisie.
Revolutionary, democratic and socialist ideology developed in all other countries in which there was a revolutionary movement directed against feudalism and capitalist exploitation of the working people. Due to special circumstances, the revolutionary-democratic ideology developed most comprehensively in Russia in the 19th century.
But before turning to the consideration of the views of the Russian revolutionary democrats, it is necessary to dwell briefly on the views of the French bourgeois historians of the restoration period - Mignet, Thierry, Guizot. These historians, under the direct influence of the events of the French bourgeois revolution and the subsequent class struggle, made an attempt to explain the history of society, and especially the great upheavals in it, by the struggle of classes, the masses of the people.
In his History french revolution» Mignet argued that history is not a biography of great personalities, but the history of peoples. These same ideas were developed by Thierry. “The movement of the masses along the path to freedom and prosperity,” Thierry wrote, “would have seemed to us more impressive than the procession of the conquerors; - and their nonparticipations are more touching than the disasters of dispossessed kings.
Mignet, Thierry, Guizot called for the study of the life and way of life of peoples, emphasized the importance of property relations. But, being the ideologists of the bourgeoisie, they also could not overcome the idealistic understanding of history. They saw the main reason for the development of society not in the development of material production, but in the progress of knowledge; they often explained the division of society into classes by violence, conquest and subjugation of one race and nation by another.
Coming out against the exclusive rule of the nobility, these historians portrayed bourgeois private property as an eternal and natural state, as the eternal and natural basis of society. They sang the struggle of the third estate, more precisely, the struggle of the bourgeoisie against the nobility, but resolutely opposed the revolutionary class struggle of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, declaring it a harmful, illegal uprising against "order". They were in favor of movements of the popular masses that would go under the leadership of the bourgeoisie, but by the people they understood primarily the propertied classes of the third estate, headed by the bourgeoisie. As a result of their class limitations, Mignet, Thierry and Guizot, after the bourgeoisie came to power, words returned to the old view, according to which history is made only by the propertied classes, and not by the working, exploited masses. Mignet, Thierry and Guizot saw in the actions of the working masses only a blind struggle of passions.
A significant role in substantiating the role of the masses in history was played by English historians of the 20-30s of the 19th century. A special place in the development of this issue is occupied by the ideologists of Chartism.
Of the representatives of pre-Marxian utopian socialism, the Russian revolutionary democrats came closest to a correct view of the role of the popular masses. Being materialists in solving the fundamental question of philosophy in understanding nature, having interpreted Hegel’s dialectic as the “algebra of revolution” (Herzen), the Russian revolutionary democrats persistently moved in the direction, as V. I. Lenin pointed out, towards dialectical materialism, came close to it and stopped before historical materialism.
Russian revolutionary democrats - Herzen, Belinsky, Ogarev, Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov, expressing the interests of the serf peasantry of Russia, critically perceived everything valuable that was before them in Russian and Western European social thought. They assimilated and creatively developed the revolutionary ideas of the Russian materialist Radishchev, the materialistic teachings of Feuerbach, the dialectic of Hegel, the teachings of the French, German and English utopian socialists, and the advanced, progressive views of the French historians Mignet and Thierry on the role of the popular masses in history.
The outstanding Russian noble revolutionary and materialist A. N. Radishchev, in his book “Journey from St. Petersburg to Moscow” (1790), speaking out against autocracy and serfdom, called on the peasants to overthrow their oppressors-landlords, robbing and humiliating human dignity peasants. Radishchev wrote, addressing the peasants:
“Crush the tools of his agriculture, burn his rigs, barns, granaries and scatter the ashes over the fields, on which his torment was performed, mark him as a public thief, so that everyone, seeing him, would not only abhor him, but would run away from his approach, so that don't get caught up in his example."
Radishchev rejected doubts about the necessity and benefits of such an uprising, exclaiming:
"O! if the slaves, weighed down with heavy bonds, raging in their despair, would break with iron, the liberties hindering them, our heads, the heads of their inhuman masters, and stain their fields with our blood! what would the state lose? Soon, great men would have been torn out of their midst to intercede for a beaten tribe, but they would have had other thoughts about themselves and were deprived of the right to oppress. This is not a dream, but the gaze penetrates the thick veil of time, hiding the future from our eyes; I see through a whole century!
This was a real penetration of Radishchev's revolutionary thought into the future. A century later, his dream came true completely and even in abundance. The Russian people not only freed themselves from serfdom, which Radishchev aspired to, but also built a socialist society.
The views of the Russian revolutionary democrats adjoin directly to these revolutionary ideas Radishchev. Criticizing the views of those utopian socialists who asserted that socialism could be achieved by peaceful means, the revolutionary democrats Herzen, Chernyshevsky and others pointed directly to the inevitability of the revolutionary struggle of the people to overthrow the old system. They came to recognize the need for revolutionary organization and the enlightenment of the masses through revolutionary propaganda. They believed that the revolution should take place through the uprising of the masses themselves, and that the revolutionary organization should prepare this uprising. Herzen and Chernyshevsky took a step forward - towards Marxism - and that they came to an understanding of the need for fundamental economic transformations for the victory of the new social order. Breaking with Bakunin in 1869, Herzen wrote that one political transformation, without an economic upheaval, could not go further than Babeuf's egalitarian communism.
Appreciating the role prominent personalities in history, Herzen, Belinsky, Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov at the same time understood and emphasized very well that an individual cannot change the course of history at his own will. The strength of outstanding personalities is that they express the needs of society, the people, fearlessly oppose the old, obsolete, and that is why they find the support of the progressive forces of the people. Although the people are oppressed, oppressed and deprived of rights, deprived of knowledge and culture, they are deceived by representatives of the ruling classes, but in the final analysis it is the people who are the protagonist of great historical events and changes. Thoughts about the decisive role of the popular masses run like a red thread through the worldview of the Russian revolutionary democrats, guiding their practical activity.
Summarizing the experience of the first stage of the French bourgeois revolution of 1848, A. I. Herzen wrote: “The February 24 revolution was not at all the execution of a prepared plan; it was a brilliant inspiration of the Parisian people ... "To find out the reasons for the defeat of the revolution, Herzen pointed out that the main, fatal mistake French provisional government, the mistake of Louis Blanc, Ledru Rollin and others was that they did not want to rely on the support of the masses, they did not want to implement the revolutionary dictatorship of the people in order to suppress the counter-revolution, that they gave the forces of counter-revolution the opportunity to organize and go on the offensive against the revolution.
It should be noted that Marx also criticized Louis Blanc, Ledru Rollin and other petty-bourgeois democrats for such mistakes. But Marx did not limit himself to this, but revealed the social, class roots of these errors and showed that the course and outcome of the revolution of 1848 were ultimately determined by the class struggle and the correlation of class forces.
Herzen hired that revolutionaries should take into account the level of development of peoples and the needs of social development, that they should go "in step with life", not lagging behind, but not running so far ahead that the masses could not yet follow them. But Herzen, like other revolutionary democrats, did not yet have a true theoretical compass that could show him the path of the revolutionary movement of the masses - he did not have a scientific, materialistic understanding of the history of society.
Herzen and other revolutionary democrats of the 19th century in Russia raised the question of the correct leadership of the working masses by the revolutionaries, of the development of a correct revolutionary theory, with all acuteness. The idea of ​​admiration for spontaneity was alien to them; they criticized Bakunin's anarchist ideas about a spontaneous peasant revolt as the main condition for the overthrow of the old order. Herzen called those who reject the need for a conscious leadership of the revolutionary movement "defiants of science and renegades of civilization". He emphasized that the working masses themselves, on whom all the "burden of everyday life" rests, are looking for "words and understanding", that is, revolutionary theory, turning away indignantly from those who are trying to prove that science is not for the masses, but only for the elect.
Of course, Herzen did not come to these conclusions immediately, but as a result careful study experience revolutionary movements, as a result of long and painful searches, disappointments, mistakes, harsh criticism and self-criticism.
Using the example of Herzen and other revolutionary democrats, Lenin taught the proletariat and his party to understand the great significance of revolutionary theory, to understand that "selfless devotion to the revolution and turning to the people with revolutionary preaching does not disappear even when whole decades separate sowing from harvest."
Remaining on the basis of utopian socialism, the Russian revolutionary democrats acted at the same time as the ideologists of the peasant revolution, pinning all their hopes on the people's revolution, and not on the miserable reforms of the old system.
Linking the achievement of their goals with the revolutionary struggle of the popular masses, the Russian revolutionary democrats opposed the idealistic theories of the personality cult that prevailed at that time in historical science.
History, wrote N. A. Dobrolyubov, is not a biography of great people. It deals with individual people, even great ones, only because they were of great importance for the people, for humanity. History is not reduced to the history of the state, it should have the life of peoples as its main subject. Therefore, when clarifying the role of an outstanding person, it is necessary to show "how those elements of living development were expressed in him, which he could find in his people." The history of peoples is made according to law, and does not depend on the arbitrariness of individual personalities. Even reforms that are successful at the beginning, if they contradict the natural course of history, the character and interests of the people, are not lasting.
D. I. Pisarev also developed deep theoretical propositions about the role of the masses in history. Following Dobrolyubov, he believed that the former study of history was not scientific, because historians do not study the life of peoples, but limit themselves to the history of states, kings, conquerors, etc. The question of the position of the working masses is a paramount question of history.
The study of history is important because it makes it possible to understand “how these masses feel and think, how they change, under what conditions their mental and economic powers develop, in what forms their passions are expressed, and to what extent their patience reaches. The story must be a meaningful and truthful account of the life of the masses; individuals and private events must find a place in it insofar as they act on the life of the masses or serve to explain it. Only such a story deserves the attention of a thinking person.
Here it is important to note the deep interest of the Russian revolutionary democrats in the conditions of life and the "development of mental and economic forces" of the working masses, their historical approach to the problem of the role of the masses in the development of society. The Russian revolutionary democrats considered the whole known history society as a history of the struggle between the working people and their oppressors, exploiters, "parasites", as Dobrolyubov wrote.
Following Dobrolyubov, Pisarev developed the idea that the activities of so-called historical figures who are not connected with the people are superficial, limited, often do not achieve their intended goals or lead to results that are directly opposite to these goals. This is explained by the fact that these figures pass by the life of the people, do not awaken the consciousness of the people, and contradict their interests and needs. The mind and will of one person is a drop in the ocean, disappearing "in the general manifestations of the great folk thought, the great people's will.
But what determines the consciousness and will of the people? To this question the Russian revolutionary democrats, like their predecessors, could not yet give a clear, scientifically substantiated answer.
Being deprived of education, the masses, Pisarev said, either obey or take part in the movements spontaneously, unconsciously. Therefore, the living forces of peoples have up to now played a very secondary role in historical events; political forms changed, states were created and destroyed, but all this for the most part passed by the people, without violating or changing either interpersonal, interclass, or economic relations. This continued until the end of the 18th century. But as the consciousness of the masses develops, their role in historical events increases. This conclusion of Pisarev suggests that the Russian revolutionary democrats approached historically the assessment of the role of the masses.
V. G. Belinsky, assessing the role of the masses in the events of the revolution of 1830 in France, noting their gullibility in relation to the bourgeoisie, at the same time wrote: “The people are a child; but this child is growing and promises to become a man full of strength and reason... He is still weak, but he alone keeps in himself the fire of national life and the fresh enthusiasm of conviction that has been extinguished in the strata of "educated society." Under the "educated" society, Belinsky understood the "triumphant" bourgeoisie, which came to power in France and from the revolutionary class became the counter-revolutionary class.
Of all the Russian revolutionary democrats, N. G. Chernyshevsky came closest to a scientific understanding of the role of the masses in history, of the role of advanced, progressive, revolutionary classes in the political development of society. It was not for nothing that Lenin wrote that Chernyshevsky's writings exude the spirit of class struggle.
Chernyshevsky believed that it was the working masses who were driving forces historical progress, despite the fact that they are crushed by the ruling classes - the landowners and the bourgeoisie. No matter how downtrodden, politically unconscious and backward the oppressed working masses may be for the time being, but under certain historical circumstances they will quickly awaken, be enlightened, show "vigorous efforts" and make "brave decisions". Chernyshevsky drew these conclusions on the basis of a deep study of the history of revolutionary movements both in Russia and in the West.
From the standpoint of revolutionary democracy, Chernyshevsky subjected to deep criticism the views of nationalists and racists who divide peoples into "higher" and "lower" races and nations. “About each of the current civilized peoples, we know that the original forms of his life were not the same as now. Lifestyles have an impact on moral qualities of people. With the change of forms of life, these qualities change. According to that alone, any characterization of a civilized people that ascribes to it some unchanging moral qualities must be recognized as false.
Chernyshevsky did not give a materialistic explanation of the reasons for the change in the forms of life, but the historical approach to the masses of the people gave him and other Russian revolutionary democrats a powerful weapon against all kinds of anti-people, reactionary theories.
In Chernyshevsky we find an important idea about "the paramount importance of the influence of everyday life on the mental and moral development of peoples", Chernyshevsky wrote:
“The masses work, and the productive arts are gradually perfected. She is endowed with curiosity, or at least curiosity - and enlightenment is gradually developing; thanks to the development of agriculture, industry and abstract knowledge, morals are softened, customs and then institutions are improved; There is only one reason for all this - the inner desire of the masses to improve their material and moral life.
But the question of what causes and determines this "internal striving" of the masses to improve their way of life in every epoch, for what reasons this striving changes, Chernyshevsky and other revolutionary democrats left unanswered or referred to the "nature" of the working masses.
By virtue of historical conditions- the economic backwardness of Russia, the absence of a labor movement in it at that time - the Russian revolutionary democrats could not get out of the framework of utopian socialism and an idealistic understanding of history, could not discover the laws of the development of society, understand the role of material production, methods of production as a determining force in the development of society. They could not make the transition from revolutionary democracy to scientific communism, that is, they could not take the position of the proletariat as the most advanced class, called upon by history to become the creator of a new, communist society. The views of the revolutionary democrats on the people and their role in history remained enlighteningly abstract, since they did not single out the working class from the general mass of working people and, due to the same economic and political backwardness of the country, could not come to an understanding of the historical role of the working class as the leader and organizer of the revolutionary struggle of all workers.
Chernyshevsky and other revolutionary democrats continued to see the main reason for the development of society in the progress of knowledge, in the spread of enlightenment, and not in a change in the methods of production of material goods. This was reflected in the incompleteness and limitations of the philosophical materialism of the Russian revolutionary democrats and of all pre-Marxist materialism. All the old, pre-Marxian materialists, as Engels pointed out, betrayed materialism precisely in their understanding of the history of society. Instead of investigating what are the material conditions that underlie ideas, they considered ideal motive forces to be the ultimate causes of social events. This prevented them from understanding the laws of development of material conditions that determine the development of society, the development of the activity of the masses as the creator of history.

Who makes history: individuals or people?

The philosophy of history has as its subject the world-historical movement of the peoples of the world in their single whole, that is, the principles and laws that underlie this movement, the decisive causes that determine social existence, such as: revolutions, wars, etc.

Before knowing the answer to the question: “Who makes history: individuals or people?” These two concepts need to be precisely defined.

At times, philosophers and historians exaggerate the role of the individual in the creation of history. The role of the individual is great because of the special place and special function that it is called upon to perform. The philosophy of history puts the historical personality in its proper place in the system of social reality, pointing to the real social forces that push it to the historical stage and shows what it can do in history, and what it cannot do.

In a general form, historical personalities are defined as follows: these are personalities raised by the force of circumstances and personal qualities to the pedestal of history. They are not only practical and political figures, but also thinking people, spiritual leaders who understand what is needed and what is timely, and lead others, the masses. These people feel and accept historical necessity and, it seems, should be free in their actions and deeds. But the thing is, they don't belong to themselves.

Having become the head of a state, an army or a popular movement, a person can have a positive or negative influence on the course and outcome of historical events. Therefore, society must know in whose hands the administrative power is concentrated.

In the process of historical activity, the strengths and weaknesses of the personality are revealed. Both sometimes acquire a huge social meaning and influence the fate of the nation, people and even humanity.

The leader must be able to generalize the domestic and international situation, maintain simplicity and clarity of thought in incredibly difficult situations, fulfill the assigned plans, program, notice changes in time and find which path to choose, as a historical opportunity to turn into reality. It is of great importance if a genius is at the head of the state, a person who has a powerful mind, great will, perseverance in achieving his goals, who enriches society with new discoveries, ideas, inventions. The fate of the country depends on the head of state. One can only say: what is the people, such is the person chosen by them.

In order to reveal the role of the people as the creator of history, it is necessary, first of all, to establish what the people, the masses of the people, are.

The people is not something immutable, ahistorical, given once and for all. It is also not a gray, disorderly "crowd", "rabble", hostile to any civilization and progress, as the ideologists of the exploiting classes are trying to present.

The people are primarily the working people, and in a class-antagonistic society, the exploited masses.

The decisive importance of the popular masses in the historical process follows from the decisive role of the mode of production of material goods in the development of society. Material production serves as the basis of social life, and the working people, the masses of the people, constitute the main productive force. Consequently, the people, the working people, are the decisive force in social development, the true creator of history.

The working masses make history primarily through their productive labour. Their hands create all the material values ​​of the city and the countryside, plants and factories, roads and bridges, machine tools and machines, etc. without which human existence is inconceivable.

The people create history, but they do not create it according to their own arbitrariness, but depending on social conditions and, above all, on the historically determined mode of production of material goods.

Marx and Engels rejected the abstract approach to man. They showed that a person is always concrete, always belongs to a historically defined social formation, class, nation, labor collective, etc.

Summarizing these two concepts, I can conclude: the people need a wise leader, without a leader, the people will never achieve their goals. Therefore, the leader is the decisive force. But at the same time, the people are no less a decisive force in history: since it creates all the material and a significant part of the spiritual wealth, providing these decisive conditions for the existence of society; it develops production, which leads to the change and development of all social life; he makes revolutions, thanks to which social progress takes place. Thus, the people are the true creators of history.

This means that the people and the individual, separately from each other, cannot make history. The course of historical events is influenced by both the people and individuals, since in history these two concepts are inextricably linked. Therefore, I am sure that history is made by the people, because they are the main, decisive force of history.

Who makes the history of individuals or people?

To answer this question, it is necessary, first of all, to establish what a people is and what a person is.

1) People is the true subject of history; his activity creates continuity in the progressive development of society. The place and role of the people in history was first revealed by Marxism-Leninism, which eliminated one of the main vices of idealistic sociology, which ignored the decisive role of the people in social development, attributing it to outstanding personalities. Marxism-Leninism investigated the social content of the concept of "people" and established that the character of the people, its class composition, change at different stages of history. For the primitive system, when there was no class division of society, the terms "population" and "people" do not differ. In antagonistic formations, the people do not include the ruling exploiting groups pursuing an anti-popular reactionary policy. Only with the liquidation of the exploiting classes under socialism does the concept of "people" cover all social groups of society.

Marxism-Leninism elucidates the objective difference in the position of individual classes, strata and groups of the population and, on the basis of taking into account their class interests, comes to the conclusion about the composition of the people. At all stages of social development, the working masses, the main productive force of society, are the basis of the people, their majority. In a class society, the people may include sections of the population with very different and even opposing interests. The bourgeoisie, for example, who fought against feudalism in bourgeois revolutions and participates in the national liberation struggle against imperialism and colonialism, belongs to the people. “Using the word“ people ”- wrote V.I. Lenin, - Marx did not obscure the differences between classes with this word, but united certain elements capable of bringing the revolution to the end.

Marxism-Leninism distinguishes a revolutionary people who are ideologically and organizationally united and capable of waging a struggle to solve urgent tasks of social progress, from those masses who, by their position, are interested in social transformations, but do not take part in an active political struggle. In the political arousal and organization of the people, the main role is played by its vanguard, the working class, led by the party. A concrete historical approach to the people enables the communist parties to pursue a flexible policy that takes into account changes in the positions of various classes, which makes it possible to forge a broad popular front that unites all progressive elements of the population capable of fighting for peace, national independence, democracy and socialism.

Relying on the people, studying their experience, demands and aspirations is a characteristic feature of the activities of the Communist Party. “... we can satisfy,” wrote V.I. Lenin - only when we correctly express what the people create. The development of society prepares the material and spiritual prerequisites for an ever broader and more active participation of the people both in the destruction of the old and in the creation of a new social system. The creative activity and activity of the people is a decisive factor in the building of socialism and communism.

2) Personality - these are the qualities and level of human development combined into a single image and created in the process of upbringing, education of a person, that is, his familiarization with public culture.

Individual qualities reveal a personality from its most diverse aspects - qualifications, degrees of culture, education, etc.

Under the influence of social relations, diverse manifestations of life and personality traits are formed. Concrete social production, economic relations give rise to such social personality types as a slave or a slave owner, a peasant or a feudal lord, a worker or a capitalist, and so on.

Social relations inherent in society - class, national and others - through the carriers of these relations (class, nation, etc.) give rise to class, national and other personality traits, which are manifestations of its social life. For example, the working class forms in its personality such qualities as organization, discipline, adherence to principles, intolerance to private property, revolutionary spirit, and so on.

In their unity, the qualities of a personality, that is, its various life manifestations - economic, social, spiritual, are a product and expression of the totality of the entire diversity of social relations.

Being a product of the social environment, the individual does not dissolve in society. She is not a weak-willed cog in the social mechanism. To the extent that the individual is molded by social circumstances, it molds society itself. We must not forget, wrote Marx, "that it is people who change circumstances."

The most outstanding historical figures who left a deep mark on history are the greatest leaders of the proletariat and all working people K. Marx, F Engels, V.I. Lenin. They were closely connected with the popular masses, taught them and themselves learned from the masses, summarizing their rich revolutionary experience. Marx, Engels, Lenin have always been opponents of the personality cult and constantly opposed excessive exaggeration of the role of individual leaders, glorification and flattery addressed to them. The founders of Marxism-Leninism believed that only the method of collective leadership ensures the success of the revolutionary movement.

Conclusion: It follows from the above that, no matter how great an individual is, she is not able to determine the course of history. The true creator of history, the creator of all spiritual and material values, is the people, the working masses.

Similar abstracts:

Ministry of General and vocational education Russian Federation Samara State Academy of Economics Department of Philosophy Test

NORTH-WESTERN ACADEMY OF PUBLIC SERVICE FACULTY OF LAW ABSTRACT on the discipline "CULTROLOGY" on the topic: "Definition of culture, the role of personality in its development"

Ministry of Higher Education of the Russian Federation SIBERIAN STATE GEODETIC ACADEMY department humanities ABSTRACT on the discipline: cultural studies

ON THE. Berdyaev on the character of the Russian people. Nikolai Aleksandrovich Berdyaev is one of the most famous Russian philosophers of the 20th century. Studied at Kiev University. For participation in the "Union of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class" he was expelled and exiled to Vologda. Soon he moved away from Marxism. At the beginning of the 20th century...

From the book “La Bohème: The Experience of a Community” 1848: Revolution, Imagination, Illusion The novel “Scenes from the Life of Bohemia” by Henri Murger (later it was he who served as the basis for the libretto of Puccini’s famous opera) is considered to be almost the first “official document” that testified. ..

Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation Izhevsk State Technical University Department of Software R E F E R A T on the topic

The variety of definitions in the concept of "culture" in modern cultural studies? Culturology is a subject of philosophical consciousness that studies the history of world culture.

MAIN DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OF THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ULYANOVSK REGION ULYANOVSK TECHNICIUM OF FOOD AND TRADE ABSTRACT Subject: Social studies Topic: Culture, its significance in human life and society

More than once wondered why the move historical development separate nations individually and all of humanity as a whole, with all the regularities, sometimes seems unpredictable? Who is making history? What is the ultimate goal of the historical development of peoples and countries, the long-suffering "planet of people"?

The role of personality in history is enormous, it makes no sense to deny it. For example, it is known that there are regularities in the course of revolutionary events in various countries Oh. In most cases, a coup, always carried out only by a group of revolutionaries, and supported by a significant part of society, almost inevitably, if successful, leads to terror and the reign of another "Bonaparte". This strong, charismatic leader is put forward by the post-revolutionary society in connection with the need to put an end to chaos and anarchy and move on to the stage of state building at a new stage in the historical development of this society. Very often, territorial conquests become the goal of the "Bonaparte": in this way, the "revolutionary energy of the masses" that continues to seethe in the depths of society finds a way out. It would seem that everything is going according to a certain historical scenario. By the "will" of the insurgent people, under the leadership of a "worthy" leader, history is being made, an attempt is made to create a more just and more perfect society.

Let us then ask ourselves: why do so many revolutions end up failing? Why every time, after a very short time, as a rule, the life of one or two generations, it can be said with certainty that the organizers of almost all revolutions would die voluntarily if, resurrecting after some time, they knew what their revolutions in eventually brought. Most often to results that are exactly the opposite of what was expected. What would Lenin and Stalin say if they knew what we have come to now? George Washington would have admired (by the way, a convinced slave owner), having learned what a modern American society with a black president at the head? And Mao Zedong, do you think, would be delighted with modern China? And Adolf Hitler, who led the National Socialist Revolution in Germany, was imbued with the triumph of political correctness in modern Germany and would be proud of that position modern Germany, which she ranks in the world?

It turns out that any revolution, despite the price that, mind you, the people who supported it inevitably pays (otherwise it is a rebellion and an uprising, not a revolution), is doomed in the end to defeat in history. You can read about the inner essence of the organizers and leaders of any revolution in Dostoevsky's novel "Demons". Believe me, any revolutionary, be he a socialist, a national socialist, a nationalist-Bandera, is a Cainite and a fratricide in spirit. Evil devours itself, and any revolution, being originally a Cainite fratricidal act in its spirit, is doomed to devour not only its children, but also itself and its fruits. Only dust and decay remains, and after a relatively short time, any nation sometimes asks itself a seditious thought that seems to itself: “But why and who needed all this? And through reforms, it was impossible to come to what we have after all these years of deprivation and after so many human sacrifices that we brought to the altar of victory in the war with ourselves?

Well, everything is clear with revolutions and their creators, at least with their spirit and goals. The devil is a destroyer by nature, and all his projects on blood are involved, they are accompanied by blood and end with blood. In August 1991 in last days putsch, when the last point in the history of the Russian revolution was put, even though a little blood was shed. Three people died. At his altar, Satan always requires sacrifice! At the entrance and exit...

What about empires? Note: all the great empires in history have ended their existence miserably. From the Roman, Byzantine, Spanish, French, German, Ottoman, Japanese, British, there were literally horns and legs! Not a trace of its former glory remains. Britain puffed out its cheeks for some time, but was soon forced to come to terms with the role of a US satellite.

But on the example of Russia, we are seeing a break in all historical patterns and patterns!

No, the Russian revolution eventually suffered a complete and final collapse, there can be no doubt about it. But initially, directed and sponsored by enemies from abroad, having as its goal the final defeat, disintegration and death of the Russian Empire, this revolution, Cain in spirit, quite unexpectedly for its sponsors and inspirers, Britain and Germany, leads to the re-creation of an even more powerful state than the imperial one. Russia. And those who dug a hole for our Fatherland fell into it themselves. Germany twice in several decades experienced defeat in the world war, went through huge sacrifices, the inglorious triumph of the Nazi ideology and its collapse, the actual collapse of the state and the loss of independence. Britain also effectively ceased to exist as an empire as a result of the Second World War and cannot be attributed to the number of winners. After the results of two wars, the United States collected all the cream, turning into a world hegemon, grappling in a competitive battle with the USSR, which grew stronger as a result of the victory in World War II. Having decomposed the Soviet Union ideologically, from within, having achieved its collapse, the American eagle could triumph over the corpse of a defeated enemy ... That's just ... rumors about the death of Russian statehood and the Russian, as it is already becoming clear, invincible spirit turned out to be greatly exaggerated. The plans of the builders of the last Babylon were never destined was to come true: Russia did not manage to completely collapse, it perked up under the leadership of a strong and charismatic leader and declared war on Babylon, the last atheistic empire in history, which we are now witnessing. And the United States again fell into a hole dug with their own hands, spiritually decomposed from the ideological weapon they themselves created - a new idolatry: the Western way of life. And the global empire of "victorious" Babylon now threatens to collapse at any moment.

But why? Why did all the empires of the past fall, and the current global one has no chance? Why do all the undertakings of peoples in the matter of building an "eternal" state go to waste? Let's think. What is the goal of all empires, including the modern world Babylon? The answer lies in the question itself: all, or almost all of these powers set the ultimate goal of building that very “tower to the sky”: that is, the creation of a powerful, embracing the whole world, or, if possible, how more territories The ecumene of the state, where, in case of success, there would be no place for God. Or He would have been put to shame, or relegated to the background, overshadowed by the greatness of the earthly power of the emperor or the supreme ruler equal to God. And even then, in the case of recognizing the very fact of the existence of a single God. Moreover, in words it was possible to declare, for example, following the will of God in the matter of “protecting and spreading the Catholic faith” in the Spanish Empire or the Muslim faith in the Ottoman Empire. The fires of the Inquisition and the genocide of the Indians, the slave trade and the execution of the infidels revealed the true nature and purpose of these imperial states. And later, already in the 19th century and, moreover, in the 20th and 21st, the builders of new empires religious motives they no longer bothered: they were already carrying on bayonets the ideals of “freedom of equality and fraternity”, “domination of the white race”, “new (German) order”, and, of course, “universal human values”.

Empires collapsed because they were built on blood. Only the Byzantine and Russian empires fell due to the departure of their peoples and rulers from what constitutes the concept of "the spirit of Orthodoxy." “Constantinople fell,” wrote the Metropolitan of Moscow in 1458, “because it apostatized from the true Orthodox faith.” The Russian Empire collapsed because a significant part of the country's population were Orthodox only nominally, being baptized, but not Christians in spirit. The West dealt an insidious blow in the back to both empires. But despite the fall of both powers, on their ruins was able to survive Orthodox Church, which helped to carry through all the years of trials and hardships the Spirit of true worship of God. That is why both Greece and Russia were not destroyed and assimilated by the conquerors: a God-bearing people cannot perish as long as it bears the spark of Faith and preserves the Church. This, I believe, is the key to the revival of both the Russian and Byzantine empires in the very near future.

And what happens? Whole move human history, since the expulsion of Adam and Eve from Eden - this is an ongoing series of attempts various peoples create another tower of babel Or at least a tower. The main goal for most empires was to rise above other peoples, to subjugate them, and then, the next stage invariably became another pandemonium. And the end of such “creativity” has always been truly biblical: the unfinished tower collapsed, and the peoples dispersed, that is, empires disintegrated into many “languages”. Russia was not destined to perish, and three times in its history it was reborn like a Phoenix bird from the ashes precisely because our people have never (except for 70 years of Babylonian captivity in the twentieth century) set the goal of their existence. And even those same 70 years of building a God-fighting state, the Church survived, preserving the Faith for posterity and strengthening it through the feat of thousands of God-fighting martyrs. For "God is able to turn evil into good." And this means that history is nevertheless created by peoples led by their rulers, precisely those whom they deserve. But the Lord God himself directs the course of historical development, whose goal is to convert as many people as possible to salvation, some of whom come to faith through hardship and suffering. Evil in history is short-lived, because it devours itself. The Germans could not defeat the Russians precisely because, according to the words of the Matrona of Moscow, they were evil, that is, they did the deeds of Cain, and we Russians, despite apostasy, preserved the Church and the Orthodox faith, and due to our fortitude, we won. This spirit is still strong in us today. I am sure that the Russian people will be glorified in history and many of us will be witnesses to this. I believe that our victory is not far off. Babylon must be destroyed and will be destroyed, because time is working against it, and the court of history has already pronounced its just verdict!

We have already said that the entire population of Russia is divided into two unequal parts: the people and, according to Pushkin, the aristocracy, the elite. Upon careful examination, the entire internal history of the country turns out to be, for the most part, the history of the struggle of the monarchy with the elite, in the name of subordinating this ruling layer to the national (people's) interests. The elite has always fought against such submission, and the lower classes have always supported the people's line - and hence the monarchy. Desire to match modern Western political theories to Russia often lead to embarrassment. Thus, Richard Pipes writes: “It should be quite obvious that in such an agrarian country as Russia was before the 1860s, where there was little money in circulation, and there was no commercial credit at all, middle class by the very nature of things, could not have had much influence." Meanwhile, in Russia there are two middle classes, one for the people (poor peasants and poor nobles), and one for the elite, the super-rich aristocracy. Or: “Only the landowning class could limit the Russian monarchy - the nobles, who by the end of the 18th century owned the overwhelming majority of the country's productive wealth, and without whom the autocracy could neither manage its kingdom nor protect it. They were in all respects the strongest and richest group ... ”, - but, firstly, the data given in the book of the same Pipes on the poverty of the vast majority of the nobility contradict what has been said, and secondly, political life the country was developing in the “reverse” direction: the monarchy, relying on the people, limited the elite, the “strongest and richest group” ... If we remove the influence of the people from our history, then the power of the Russian monarchy is completely incomprehensible: where did all the “collectors of the Russian land”, starting from Ivan Kalitas, took strength to fight against the appanages, against the boyars, against localism, against the "supervisors", against the serf-owners and other nice people, and even defended the borders? These forces were given by the people. The monarch gathered Russia into one fist; the aristocracy tried to master this fist from within. The tsar suppressed these attempts by the methods adopted in his time, as a rule, by appealing to the people, sometimes implicitly, sometimes explicitly, as, for example, Ivan the Terrible did in his famous appeal from Aleksandrovskaya Sloboda, deliberately turning to the lower classes. But where are the sources of this confrontation, why do we always have this and not otherwise - what, so to speak, is the mechanism of our amazing history? On any continent, in any country, any human community is in certain external conditions. In order not only to exist in them, but also to develop, it must preserve the experience of the past in them to survive, and at the same time be able to rebuild as conditions change. In other words, in the process of evolution, the community must be both inertial and sensitive to change. So, the rural population (peasants) ensure the internal survival of everyone, including the elite, and they are also the most conservative element of society. And the elite provides external contact, constituting the service class of the state: after all, the main efforts of diplomacy and the army are directed outside. The elite lives at the expense of their country, that is, from the surplus product that the people give it. This is not paranoia, if it works in the interests of this country and this people. But if she begins to act solely in her own interests, or, even worse, in the interests of other countries, then the people can expel her, or stop supporting her. Without the elite, the state will also disappear, and therefore it must be given the opportunity to live exactly as well (conveniently, comfortably, satisfyingly, etc.) as it benefits society. Therefore, the point is not to drive out the bad elite, but to properly maintain the good one. This is the situation objectively existing in any country. What is the problem with Russia? The fact that Russia is not ANY country at all. If in Western Europe the monarchs could allow their nobles fair liberties, then in Russia this number did not work in any way: the surplus product that could be obtained from the land was too scarce for the peasants to prosper, the nobles to fatten, and the state would be strong in the face of constantly emerging external threats and internal unrest. Something one. So, the reason for the formation of an original Russian economy and political regime should be sought not in the morbid predilection of our nobleman for submission, and not in the absurd despotism of the autocracy, but in the difficult natural and climatic conditions that determined both the nature of production relations and the mechanism of power. All people are people. You and I know them. The peasant would like to give the master less, or even run away to where there are no bars, and the land is richer. And the nobleman needs to live with something, and he demands obedience from the peasant. Therefore, academician L. V. Milov quite correctly writes that serfdom is “a historically regular form of manifestation and development of feudal relations proper” - natural geographical conditions influenced the emergence of serfdom as the most real and even the only possible means of appropriating the historically optimal surplus product by the ruling class . For his part, the nobleman, by no means objecting to receiving income from peasant labor, could strongly doubt the need to spend it on equipment and weapons. Either a very strong moral incentive was needed, or coercion, so that he, under the royal banners, went to war, to die for personal interests that were completely alien to him. Why are they "alien"? Yes, because different interests also line up in a hierarchy or, let's say, a ladder. At the bottom step are the interests of the individual peasant; a little higher - communities; even higher are the interests of the master, as the "representative" of the community before the supreme power; and so we get to the very top, that is, to the sovereign. It is he who is called upon to synchronize all private interests in order to be able to realize the interests of the state. And there are a lot of them, and they also line up in order. The first and fundamental interest of the state is the simplest: it is the own preservation of the rulers. As a rule, in the absence of interests of the next degrees of complexity, and only this one is achieved, the position of the state is unstable. The next goal is either the military defense of the country, or an attack on the neighbors; in the general case, it can be called the goal of geopolitical positioning. A complex, “diplomatic” option is possible: plan your actions in such a way as to avoid direct military action, but get the desired improvement. Next comes the task of creating a decent economy so that potential adversaries would prefer to be friends with your country than to impose their will on it. It is clear that a certain level of education of society is required to achieve such a goal. Another goal of the state is the maintenance and development of ideology, in accordance with changing external conditions: without the development of ideology to the requirements of the moment, it is impossible to consolidate the nation. Achieving "high" goals requires much more time than "low" ones, and, of course, the country's authorities must understand what they want. But here we are faced with the problem of personnel. That is, the question arises: who will implement these goals (state interests)? It is clear that those who are given this task become part of the country's elite, while the elite - as a class, as part of society - has completely different goals! If the government seeks that all strata of society work for the benefit of the state (we call this type of government Byzantine, since it was first borrowed by Russia from Byzantine Empire ), the interests of the people and the elite coincide, the state is strengthened and successfully developed. When governance is carried out in the interests of the elite (we call this type of government Polish, for the same reason), what happens is that the elite loses its sense of reality, and the main producers of wealth are keenly aware of the injustice of such a situation. And if measures are not taken to correct the situation, then the country has no future. Or there are bloody cataclysms, again for the sake of correcting the imbalance. The periods when the “Byzantine” style of government dominated in Russia, together occupy a significantly smaller share of our history than when the state was governed according to the “Polish” type. For this reason, the elite that dominated throughout almost our entire past had enough time to describe the history of the country in its own way, setting accents that were beneficial for themselves. And, in her opinion, the “Byzantine” type of government is the worst and most backward, but the “Polish freemen” is progress and the pinnacle of state wisdom. Therefore, the era, for example, of Ivan the Terrible and the very personality of this ruler, both in domestic and foreign historiography, are depicted only in black colors. But the Time of Troubles with its elected boyar tsar is considered almost the forerunner of all democracy in Europe. It is clear that, giving their assessments of that ancient period, historians proceeded from the ideological models adopted in their time, and not at all from the then interests of the country whose history they describe. The people need a state that, with all its might, will force the executors to act in the state = public interests, and not in their own selfish interests. And the elite ALWAYS preferred selfish interests. There are many examples of this in history: Prince Kurbsky under Ivan the Terrible, the boyar freemen under Elena Glinskaya, His Serene Highness Prince Menshikov under Peter. The difficulty is that the state apparatus consists only of people. In some cases, it is possible to change personnel (if there is a personnel reserve), but in some cases it is not. Ivan the Terrible had to initially rely on those people whose goals had at least something in common with his royal goals, and in the course of carrying out his program, part with those of them whose goals began to go very far to the side. This happened to Adashev, who collaborated with the tsar for the longest time. But people usually understand perfectly well what is going on, and tend to consolidate into some structures in order to resist the authorities. It is good if the goals of these structures coincide with the goals of maintaining the stability of the state, but usually they act to the detriment of it - let us recall, as an example, the behavior of the boyars during the childhood of Ivan IV - because it was directed against the interests of the state. These boyars had to be fought, and later replaced by the nobility, depriving them of economic resources. After all, the old elite did business in such a way as to achieve goals that were directly opposite to those of the tsar, and the difficult geopolitical situation required urgent measures, and the tsar had to solve this personnel issue. Due to the long-term implementation of high-level goals, succession of power is necessary. Unfortunately, after the reigns of both Ivan and Peter, it did not exist, and not only because of the suppression of the dynasty, but also because their heirs did not understand the goals that guided Ivan and Peter. They, as the legitimate owners of their country, and not temporary workers, saw the future and understood their tasks: the owner of the house understands better what needs to be done to make the house prosper than the tenant. And Godunov's power was more "petty", as it solved problems much more low level than those that were decided under Grozny. There is no need to talk about Catherine I. For the true owner of the Russian land, it is important to understand the essence of the ongoing processes, he must see the general course of events. That is, to be able to assess the situation, and in accordance with this, make a decision. But when the essence of the processes is understood, and the goal is set, the owner must also have managerial talent. That is, he must imagine what goal he is striving for, and constantly adjust his actions for this, since it is not at all a fact that the specific actions he has planned lead to the expected results. And the situation is constantly changing under the influence of other forces pursuing their own goals, including foreign states. And, finally, the owner must be able to create mechanisms for the realization of his goals. Understand what the government can manage and what not; which governance structures can be created and which not. Understand whether he has people for such work, or not, and whether he will be able to control them; what to leave behind, and what to transfer to the lower managerial "floors", including local government. Peter I received the building of autocracy that was already firmly put together. But he also had to start his political career with yet another defeat of the stagnant, swaggering, inefficient layer: first of all, the public good, and if you don’t want to submit to goodness, then “I have a stick, and I am the father of all of you.” He swung at a very high level target. If this is not taken into account, it may seem that there was a fair amount of randomness in his actions: some things begin, do not end, new ones begin. Perhaps Peter, observing his closest assistants, understood that they were not able to realize what he forced them to do. Without proper control, they instantly forgot about the state interest, while not forgetting about their own. So he wanted, having started various businesses, to create some structure that would force his heirs to act within certain limits. And he succeeded. And what seemed chaotic, ill-conceived, turned into a source of development of the country in subsequent kingdoms. Thus, we can say that Peter's reforms set a certain structure for subsequent actions. Under the empresses, the dependence of the monarch on the interests of the people weakened - people who came to power through palace coups and regicides could not but reckon with the authors of these coups, and made concessions to them, tending to the "Polish" style of government. But even with all the concessions, the tsar continued to remain a protege of the people, and not of the “stratum”, which was the nobility, and which later became the top of the party nomenklatura, and even later, our modern semi-official “democrats”. Unfortunately, the heirs of Peter (except, to some extent, Paul I and Alexander III) were not able to rise enough high level goals. And when highly planned work goes at a reduced level, many meaningful actions turn into their opposite. For example, the introduction of the Table of Ranks was planned as a mechanism to attract the most talented citizens of the country to the management system, which would help improve the quality of the elite, reduce the barrier between the two "peoples", since a talented person could break through to the top from the bottom, which made society socially mobile . Under the following reigns, this system began to ossify and turn into a brake on social mobility. Another example is the establishment of the Academy of Sciences. Its task was to create national scientific personnel, but after Peter the Great it became a sinecure for foreigners, who, for the most part, tried to prevent the creation of national scientific personnel so that they would not become their competitors. And there are many such examples. It is possible and necessary to evaluate the activity of the supreme power not by statements, appeals and holidays, but only by how much as a result of its actions the country moved in the chosen direction, that is, how well the government conducted management ...