As we wrote in previous articles on VO, dedicated to the key stages in the development of Russian civilization, the catching-up type of development will always be accompanied by overpressure from the side of the one who is being caught up: cultural, economic and military.
This "samsara" can only be interrupted by catching up and overtaking, but it is more important and preferable to create your own "challenges".
Or maybe there is no need for this crazy race? Perhaps it is better to "take advantage" of the fruits of Western achievements without resistance? After all, Columbus was touched by the meekness of the natives of "India", later completely exterminated by the Spaniards.
“The West is the only civilization that has had a huge and at times devastating effect on all other civilizations,” wrote Samuel Huntington.
Russia, which has mastered Western technologies, was able to resist the West as a civilization.
This was enough to immediately identify Russia as an aggressor. N. Ya. Danilevsky, long before Toynbee's civilizational theory, pointed out this problem. Comparing the situation in the nineteenth century. with the rejection of territories by Germany from small Denmark, and the suppression of the Polish uprising, he indicated: harsh criticism of Russia and the absence of such against Germany is determined by one thing, the alienation of Russia for Europe, there are clashes within the framework of one civilization, here is a clash of civilizations.
Of course, the countries of this civilization may have contradictions, they are often colossal, such as, for example, the centuries-old struggle of France and England for hegemony in the Western world. But these contradictions fade when it comes to clashes with other civilizations, for example, as in the attack on China in the 19th century. Or in the case when the Russian victories in the Balkans, during the war of 1877-1878, were leveled by the decision of the Berlin Congress of Western countries:
"We have lost one hundred thousand soldiers and one hundred million gold rubles, and all our sacrifices are in vain." (A. M. Gorchakov).
So the First World War was a war for hegemony in the Western world, and therefore, in those conditions, and for power over the rest of the world. And the Second World War, at least within the framework of the main theater of military operations - the Great Patriotic War, was a war of two civilizations, therefore there is such a difference in the victims of these two wars and in the tension of forces.
So, this challenge or aggression from the neighboring, more technically equipped Western civilization gave rise to two successful modernization projects in Russia: one was carried out by the "Westernizer" Peter I, the other, as strange as it sounds for many readers, the "Westernizers" were the Bolsheviks.
As we wrote above, Peter's modernization allowed Russia to become a full-fledged participant in European and world politics, often to its own detriment.
Peter's backlog, as mentioned above, was enough until the period of the Western industrial revolution.
The reluctance of the supreme power to carry out a new modernization led to the fact that by the First World War the country became a Western semi-colony, and in this war for hegemony in the Western world, in relation to Russia, the question was decided who would dominate as a result of the war: French or German capital. Of course, while respecting the external attributes of sovereignty.
Control system
During the reign of Nicholas I, in whose eyes revolutionary changes were taking place among its neighbors, Russia had a chance to carry out a new modernization and solve the most important issue of the Russian "imperial people": to give land and freedom, which we wrote about in an article on VO "Nicholas I. Lost modernization". But the management system built by Nikolai Pavlovich, bureaucratic and formal-decorative, a system of petty police control and constant pressure, could not contribute to the development of the country, especially modernization:
"What a strange ruler he is, he plows his vast state and does not sow any fruitful seeds." (M. D. Nesselrode)
Within the framework of this cycle, dedicated to the key factors of the development of Russia as a civilization, we will not dwell on all the vicissitudes of the post-reform development, list the details of the "revolution from above" of Alexander II or counter-reforms of Alexander III, it is important that these actions did not have a systematic development of the state, that is, of course, the country was moving forward, but within the framework of its development, as a Civilization, it was cardinally insufficient, and reforms or counter-reforms only influenced particulars, without touching on the essence.
An important factor in the inhibition was the complete lack of goal-setting. The idea of "absolute monarchy" could only be a form of salvation for the ruling class and the status quo for its economic well-being, but not a goal for the country. And in this regard, it makes no sense to pose the question: what was it like in France or England, countries that were forming in a different framework, and developing during this period, in many respects, due to the exploitation of other civilizations and peoples, and not only due to their "imperial people", At first.
Secondly, even the right actions or reforms, in the conditions of a management system that does not have goals and a vision of the country's development, could not change the situation.
For example, the gold ruble was “the hardest currency”, but large-scale government lending abroad and the power of foreign capital in the Russian industry reduced its “hardness” to nothing, made it relevant only in case of paying for cocottes in Paris or playing in casinos in Monaco or Baden. Baden.
In such conditions, the outstripping rates of development of Russia in comparison with Western countries in the post-reform period, and especially before the First World War, in the absence of modernization, did not in any way reduce the gap with these countries, but the low level of well-being, education and culture of the broad masses in comparison with Western countries was written even in official sources.
In terms of industrial production in 1913, Russia was inferior to: the United States by 14, 3 times, Germany by 6 times, England by 4, 6 times, France by 2, 5. (Lyashchenko P. I.)
Land and Freedom
The agrarian issue was the cornerstone problem of the Russian Empire. A question that concerned no less than 85% of the country's population.
Finding a way out of it, within the framework of the proposed management system, was absolutely impossible: every half step of the government in this direction only worsened the situation. All the proposed solutions were anti-peasant in nature: the Great Reform reduced peasant holdings by 20%, redemption payments exceeded the economic capabilities of the peasant economy, which led to arrears and massive impoverishment: in the European part of the Republic of Ingushetia, the income was 163 kopecks. from tithes, payments and taxes from tithes - 164.1 kopecks, for example, in the north-west of the country, where the situation was extremely unfavorable in the Novgorod province, with 2.5 per capita allotments, income from agriculture a year was 22 rubles. 50 kopecks, and the amount of fees was 32 rubles. 52.5 kopecks In the more favorable conditions of the Petersburg province, the income was equal to the fees, and this despite the fact that the income was not only from agriculture, but also from waste trades. (Kashchenko S. G., Degterev A. Ya., Raskin D. I.) What sense could have had in such conditions a deficit-free budget of 1874, achieved by the best Minister of Finance of the Republic of Ingushetia M. Kh. Reiter?
In 1860 in the European provinces of RI there were 50, 3 million peasants, and in 1900 already 86, 1 million, commensurately, the size of the per capita allotment changed from 4, 8 dessiatines. up to 2, 6 dec. in 1900, with the overpopulation of the country, capitalist rent was killed by rent payments exceeding it several times, which led to the sale of large land property to the peasants, as pointed out by the agrarian economist A. V. Chayanov. (Zyryanov P. N., Chayanov A. V.)
The state, with the help of taxes forcing the peasant to simply bring the product to the market to the detriment of personal consumption, without modernization in agriculture, destroyed the subsistence economy.
Thus, a vicious circle was formed: there was a decrease in large-scale efficient farming and an increase in natural peasant farming, which was unable to become a “farm” due to the lack of capitalist rent and a primitive level of agriculture.
After the revolution or the new Pugachevism of 1905, the redemption payments were canceled, but at the same time the agrarian, or rather the political reform of P. A. Modern researchers believe that it would take more than 50 peaceful years to implement it. In contrast to the reform of 1861, Stolypin was poorly prepared and not supported by finances. And it had to touch on significant layers of the peasant worldview, to face the centuries-old institution - the peasant community, the world, which after 1905-1906. categorically and deliberately was against the "Russian fencing".
The peasant world looked at the situation with the land in a different way, which was reflected in the massive peasant orders to the deputies: a complete black redistribution. According to Stolypin's reform, by 1916, only 25% of the lands of the communities passed into individual ownership, but in the course of the new revolution, the peasantry annulled this situation. (Kara-Murza S. G.)
In the absence of modernization in agriculture and land scarcity, the absence of an industrial revolution in Russia and urbanization, the destruction of the community not only worsened the situation of the peasant masses, but would also lead to new mass suffering.
In the 30s of the twentieth century. collectivization was compensated by industrialization and urbanization, the flow of population to cities, was carried out in the tight pre-war years, finally realizing what had not been done in 50 peaceful, post-reform years.
So, according to the situation of 1909 -1913. we have a consumption of mineral fertilizers per hectare: Belgium - 236 kg., Germany - 166 kg., France - 57, 6 kg., Russia - 6, 9 kg. As a result, for comparable crops, the yield in Ingushetia is 3, 4 times less than in Germany, 2 times less than in France. (Lyashenko I. P.)
Formally, all tasks were reduced to pumping out of the village "raw materials" for the purpose of selling abroad, according to the formula "we will not finish eating, but we will take them out." At this level, according to the data for 1906, the average consumption of the Russian peasant was 5 times lower than that of the English. (Russian physiologist Tarkhanov I. R.) In the severe hungry 1911, 53.4% of the produced grain was exported, and in the record 1913, 472 kg were grown per capita. grain, while countries that had a production of less than 500 kg per person did not export grain, but imported it (Kara-Murza S. G.).
The siphoning of capital from the countryside could be justified if it contributed to the development of the country, the industrial and cultural revolution or reform, but nothing of this, we repeat, has been done in the fifty post-reform years. As the economist P. P. Migunov wrote on the eve of the First World War in his official work dedicated to the 300th anniversary of the Romanov dynasty:
"Russia, like all other cultural states, has made great strides forward in its economic and cultural development, but it will still have to spend a lot of effort to catch up with other peoples who have gone ahead of us."
In the end, the peasant guard, but already in gray greatcoats and with rifles, got tired. If the "enslavement" of the peasants was a foregone conclusion during the first civil war in Russia (Troubles) (1604-1613), then the final exit from the "enslavement" also took place during the new civil war of the twentieth century.
It was in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries that the dynasty, the mediocre governing apparatus and the ruling class did not cope with the challenges, did not carry out modernization in time and drove into a corner the solution of problems that were resolved in the course of new modernization, which cost the country huge sacrifices.
Here is what the Narodnaya Volya members wrote to Alexander III, who ascended the throne, warning about the danger of revolution (!):
“There can be only two ways out of this situation: either a revolution, completely inevitable, which cannot be prevented by any executions, or a voluntary appeal of the supreme power to the people. We do not set conditions for you. Don't be shocked by our proposal."
The ending of the letter is noteworthy:
“So, Your Majesty, decide. There are two paths before you. The choice depends on you. We then only ask fate for your reason and conscience to suggest you a solution that is the only one consistent with the good of Russia, with your own dignity and obligations to your native country."
The problem of governing a country, and especially one such as Russia, is often associated with the first person: the revolution is not made by revolutionaries, it is made by the government, who are in power before the revolution, as L. N. Tolstoy.
And this was the state of affairs with the tsars in the nineteenth century, and it does not matter here whether they were prepared for the throne, like Alexander II and III or Nicholas II, or not prepared, like Nicholas I. Did the tsar work for days like Nicholas I and Alexander III, or only during "working hours", like Alexander II or Nicholas II. But all of them only performed a service, routine, daily, for some burdensome, someone is better, someone is worse, but nothing more, and the country needed a leader capable of moving it forward, creating a new system of management and development, and not only the chief clerk, albeit outwardly similar to the emperor. This is the problem of the management of the period of the last Romanovs and a tragedy for the country, however, in the end, and for the dynasty.
The Bolsheviks had to solve these problems in other, more terrible conditions for the country. And the Bolsheviks did not naively demanded, like Stolypin, twenty years of calm, I understand that there is no time, "it should have been done yesterday," "otherwise they will crush." S. Huntington wrote:
“The coming to power of Marxism, first in Russia, then in China and Vietnam, was the first phase of the departure from the European international system to a post-European multi-civilization system … Lenin. Mao and Ho Chi Minh adapted it to suit themselves [meaning the Marxist theory - VE] in order to challenge Western power, as well as to mobilize their peoples and assert their national identity and autonomy as opposed to the West."
New modernization … and not only
As we can see, apart from the modernization project, they have created something more.
The Russian communists created a structure that itself began to form "challenges" for Western civilization, which has not had them since the days of the Turkish threat or Islamic civilization.
Communist ideas: the idea of a world without exploitation, a world without colonies, an equivalent exchange between peoples, in the end, “world peace” these ideas-challenges, of course, jarred on the “old world” - the world of the West, in which “the English people really resembled a bulldog torn off the leash."
This was not inferior to England and other major European countries: one of them, Germany, in the end, in search of a "place in the sun" finally fell through in the 30s of the twentieth century.
These "challenges" received a huge response from peoples under the direct or indirect colonial yoke of Western countries, from most of the national liberation movements from China to America. This is not about assessing: good or bad, "we were friends with those who declared themselves to be adherents of socialism, but in fact were not such." This is the lyrics.
A. Blok, brilliantly intuitively, in the midst of a catastrophe, when “strangers, the haze of the north went to the bottom, like debris and canned food tins”, grasped the essence of a new “challenge” to the world:
Yes, and this is lyrics, but in practice, the Russian civilization for the first time in its history has thrown a real challenge to the West or, in military language, has seized the initiative. There was nothing in the history of Russian civilization either before, let alone after, Soviet power.
Soviet Russia has become a creative threat to the civilization that has taken over the world. As L. Feuchwanger exclaimed:
“How nice, after the imperfection of the West, to see such a work to which one can heartily say: yes, yes, yes!”.
Realizing this clearly, the West revived the myth of Russia's conceptual aggressiveness. Even after the end of the Second World War, when the USSR needed to raise the European part of the country from ruins, feed the Eastern European countries, tearing the latter away from its own population for decades, which the former people's democracies shyly keep silent about, accusing the Union of occupation, the former European allies tried to declare his new threat to the world:
"Western mythology ascribes to the communist world the same foreignness as to any planet: the USSR is a world intermediate between Earth and Mars." (Bart R.)
The military threat from the USSR is a figment of the wild imagination of Western politicians or purposeful propaganda, while in Western scientific historiography it has been recognized since the 70s of the twentieth century, "That the Soviet Union acted not so much in pursuance of some master plan for the conquest of world domination, but because of considerations of a local and defensive nature, which the official West did not accept, or rather did not understand." (Schlesinger A. Jr.)
The problem was the same, the Country of Soviets could impose its agenda on the West: its challenge - a threat more significant than weapons - a challenge - which required a "response":
“… There are today two factors, noted A. Toynbee, that speak in favor of communism: firstly, disappointment with previous attempts to introduce the Western way of life and, secondly, the discrepancy between the rapid population growth and means of subsistence… The truth is that offering the Japanese and to the Chinese a secularized version of Western civilization, we give them a "stone instead of bread", while the Russians, offering them communism along with technology, give them at least some kind of bread, albeit black and stale, if you like, but suitable for consumption, for it contains a grain of spiritual food, without which man cannot live."
And such steps of the Soviets as the cultural revolution, free medicine, free education, free housing were completely breakthrough in the history of mankind and this was done in a "single country" with an extremely low starting material level of prosperity in comparison with the West, which went through a clash of civilizations in 1941-1945, when people of Western culture behaved on the territory of the USSR as conquistadors in Mexico.
Gradually, since the 60s of the twentieth century, the USSR began to form economic challenges, as the philosopher G. Marcuse noted:
“Due to total administration, automation in the Soviet system can proceed at an uncontrollable speed upon reaching a certain technical level. This threat to the positions of the Western world in international rivalry would force it to accelerate the rationalization of the production process ….
And here is what management guru Lee Yaccock wrote in the early 80s:
"The Soviet Union and Japan are directing a lot of efforts to improve the level of technological knowledge in their countries, and we cannot keep up with them."
The Bolshevik or Soviet system, creating assertiveness in promoting ideas was the ideal formula, thanks to which a less aggressive society in its inner content could really compete in the international arena, creating systemic challenges, rather than mosquito bites, serving as a scarecrow or whipping boy.
