Monarchy with a socialist form 2. How to curb the oligarchs
Konstantin Leontiev, philosopher and writer of the 19th century Russian Empire, left behind a great legacy, anticipating the socialist state structure of Russia, which during the life of the philosopher and monk Clement (shortly before his death K. N. Leontiev took monastic tonsure with the name Clement) was born in the Russian State, as the only possible system that successfully complements the monarchy ... At the end of the 19th century, the nobility, which was the mainstay of the royal throne, began to get carried away with capitalist ideas, without which the development of the state was impossible, but it was precisely these signs of the new century that carried a huge danger to estate Russia, since the class of nobles was completely devalued, and the throne of the Tsar remained without support. ... K.N. Leontiev perfectly saw the danger of the new time for Russia, which could not become a capitalist Power, like the countries of the West, where the communal system was destroyed several centuries ago and the change of socio-economic formations was relatively successful. In communal Russia, such processes of breaking down the estate character of society threatened with the greatest upheavals, but few saw and realized the impending dangers for the Russian Empire and the tsarist throne. K.N. Leontiev was one of the few who understood the impending dangers, and who not only became the herald of the need to build socialism in Russia, but also predicted the future state structure.
Leontiev K. N. - Alexandrov A. A. 3.5.1890:
Sometimes I think (I do not say I dream, because this is alien to me, my tastes, but I involuntarily think, I objectively and impartially anticipate) that some Russian Tsar, perhaps in the near future, will become the head of the socialist movement (as St. Constantine became the head of the religious - "In this you conquer!") And organizes it in the same way as Konst (antin) contributed to the organization of Christianity, having entered the first path of the Ecumenical Councils. - But what does "organization" mean? Organization means coercion, means comfortable despotism, means legalization of chronic, constant, skillfully and wisely distributed violence against the personal will of citizens. Therefore, the liberal (according to his stupid conclusions, and not the foundations, quite correct) Spencer with horror sees in socialism a new coming state slavery. And one more consideration: it is hardly possible to organize such a complex, lasting and new slavery without the help of mysticism. Now, if, after the annexation of Constantinople, the unprecedented concentration of the Orthodox administration in the Catholic-Patriarchal form (of course, without any theory of "infallibility" - which we will not tolerate) coincides, on the one hand, with the strengthening and strengthening of the mystical stream that is growing even now in Russia, and on the other - with the inevitable and destructive labor movements in the West, and even here (one way or another), then at least two foundations - religious and state-economic - can be vouched for a long time.
In short, the meaning of this message can be characterized as follows: the Russian Tsar will become the head of the socialist movement, but organizing such a complex, lasting and new slavery is hardly possible without the help of mysticism. "If the mystical current that is now growing in Russia coincides with the irreversible and destructive labor movement, then two foundations can be obtained - a religious and a state-economic one." These words of K.N. Leot'ev surprisingly coincide with the statements of the German philosopher O. Spengler in his work "Prussianism and Socialism" in 1920:
Authoritarian socialism is monarchical, the most responsible position in a grandiose organism, the place of the first servant of this state, in the words of Frederick the Great, cannot be placed at the disposal of private careerism - this is an idea that has slowly matured in the world of mankind and has long nurtured a special human type for itself.
Why should socialism necessarily be monarchical? Because for the socialist system, according to the apt words of K. N. Leontiev, "comfortable despotism", that is, coercion, "new slavery" is necessary, not because society does not tend to care about state interests as about its own - for the Russian people, this state of affairs is precisely the meaning of its existence - concern for the preservation and augmentation of the Motherland, but because labor under socialism is a necessity and cannot but be forced due to the homogeneity of society in relation to property, which is state. That is, the state is the owner, forcing the entire society to work, as the basis of its development and improvement of society, where labor is not only a measure of personal well-being, but also the (only) way to increase the welfare of the state, which is not a night watchman of capital, as under capitalism, carrying out its functions of a regulator and guardian exclusively at the expense of taxes on capital, but under socialism it is the state that serves as a guarantee of the progressive development of society, an increase in its well-being and the development of creative potential. Therefore, the state under socialism is obliged to compel society to work as a compulsory obligation.
However, coercion cannot be collectively managed in the form of parliament and cabinet, as under capitalism. Coercion is always monarchical and has a strict vertical hierarchy, like the army, otherwise a strict system of "well-ordered despotism" cannot be created. In the USSR, the General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee was a "red monarch", especially JV Stalin, who was feared by his subordinates, but idolized by the people - the real signs of the monarchical system. In fairness, it should be noted that such a state of affairs was possible only under J.V. Stalin, whose practical mind and colossal efficiency made it possible to keep the system of the CPSU - socialism - society from collapse, since such a formula has nothing to do with a genuine monarchy, the only one able to give impetus state development socialism with its socialized property. The party, even the only one, could not do this, since it had two features: 1. Preservation of its own power and its own reproduction even to the detriment of the development of society, 2. The collective responsibility of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee is a utopia, moreover, the dependence of the General Secretary on the decisions of the Politburo immediately turns him into an executor, not a sole leader.
That is why, already from the first decade of the existence of the USSR, revisionist views on the need to reform socialism to capitalism began to form within the party elite, because it is capitalism, as a socio-economic formation, which can only be found under a collective method of management and responsibility, which was proved in the USA and Great Britain, where many collective organizations were created, uniting politicians and financiers, industrialists and lawyers, who later became the aristocratic elite of big business. Thus, socialism, as a principle of state coercion and state ownership, is possible only with such a socio-economic system headed by a monarch who exercises a pyramid of power, and not collegial governance, especially party governance. But monarchy alone is not enough, as well as coercion alone, it is necessary to earn the people's loyalty, their love and self-sacrifice, without which it is difficult to imagine the successful development of socialism and its principles. It is important not just to please society - this is a dangerous and dead-end path, which Nicolo Machiavelli remarkably spoke about in his work "The Sovereign" of 1532, but you need to be the first to show your concern for society and the state, who is aware of your responsibility for the future of the people and country ... However, without the mystical component of power, it is impossible to combine firmness of will, understanding the ways of development of society and the state, as well as caring for the citizens of your country. Only a leader who understands the mystical component of power is able to successfully combine all the qualities of a sole ruler - a monarch. It is the monarch who, when marrying the kingdom, entrusts himself to God and swears an oath of this fidelity, in return receiving everything necessary for the successful leadership of the country - a strong will, a talent for leadership and the love of his people.
It is this thesis that is reflected in the letter of K.N. Leontiev to T.I. Filippov on September 3, 1889, Optina Pustyn:
Something one of three: or 1) A special culture, a special structure, a special way of life, submission to one's Church Unity; or 2) Submission of the Slavic statehood to the Roman papacy; or 3) Pick up the extreme revolutionary movement and becoming at the head of it - to wipe the bourgeois culture of Europe from the face of the earth ... It is not for nothing that this great state machine, which is called Russia still) will live to the death and death only as a political one, i.e. as a mechanical force, without any ideal, even the most terrible, but still ideal influence on history. I believe that no matter what path Russia chooses after that great upheaval, which both terrifies everyone and at the same time is inevitably approaching, we must point to the first path - isolation and do everything we can to convert the Slavs to it.
Amazingly, in this passage, K.N. Leontiev examines three paths of Russian statehood, which are: 1. The beginning of the new utopia of the permanent revolution of Trotsky - Parvus was laid by the October Revolution of 1917, when the Bolsheviks took over the extreme revolutionary movement and, becoming the head of it , tried to wipe out the bourgeois culture of Europe from the face of the earth, taking party socialism as a basis, when the communist party acted as a collective "comfortable despotism", "new slavery" led by fiery revolutionaries who dreamed of subordinating the whole of Europe to their dictates. But the utopia, which cost millions of Russian lives, remained a utopia, the West did not want state socialization of property, individualism and the Masonic motto "freedom, equality, brotherhood" were important to it, which did not take root in Russia, despite the desperate attempts of the Great East of France and its progenitor - the Order of Malta. 2. The current stage of Russian statehood under the auspices of capitalism, but with the face of the Central Committee of the CPSU, as the only possible monarchical power, its surrogate, necessary for the public consciousness of the Russian people, who do not see themselves differently than in a collective, a community, when the state is the very community, which has been striving for since ancient times Russian heart... Again, political dualism took possession of the Russian state, based on the principle of "freedom, equality, brotherhood" of the Vatican orders, which is alien to the Russian people, when even the Russian Church strives for union with the papal throne, which has retained its monarchy from the very beginning of the transition from Roman paganism to Roman Christianity, which is different from Eastern, Orthodox Christianity, which does not require proof of devotion, but remains in the truth to this day. 3. The upcoming stage, apparently, the last in Russian history, is designed to combine state socialism and the monarchy of governing the country and society, as the only possible way government controlled under socialism, capable of giving a colossal impetus to the development of the country and society, not bound by obligations with any of the aristocratic Masonic associations in Europe. It is the Orthodox monarchy that is able to revive the Russian Church, which today is in decline after the short renaissance of the 90s of the last century, to organize society with a new despotism and new state slavery for the progressive development of the state, in whose current existence the unity and struggle of opposites prevails over the true understanding of the chosen path. But only in this way can we find true freedom from Western coercion, from Anglo-Saxon despotism, which hides behind the imaginary freedom of capitalism, which is actually slavery without any equality and brotherhood, where brotherhood is understood as the need for blind and unquestioning obedience to the whims and lusts of those who have acquired his state is on the coercion and enslavement of society, not in the least caring about the benefits of the state.
I am of the opinion that socialism in the 20th and 21st centuries will begin to play the role that Christianity played on the basis of the state-religion when it began to triumph on the basis of the state-economic basis. Now socialism is still in the period of martyrs and early communities, scattered here and there. There will be for him his own Constantine (it is very possible and even more likely that this economic Constantine will be called Alexander, Nikolai, George. I have indicated, but I want to prove that, in essence, liberalism is undoubtedly destruction, and socialism can become creation.
This is a very important and interesting prophetic statement of K. N. Leontiev, because it was Christianity that contributed to the creation of statehood in Europe and in Russia, forming not only the cultural environment, but also the attitude of society to the need to create its own territory, national culture and economy, socializing all these principles statehood to preserve the people as the driving force of their own, national state, protecting its territorial inviolability and economic mode of existence. Wars only strengthened the statehood, which was largely facilitated by the state ideology based on Christian principles and methods of maintaining it, while the monarchic power was the mainstay of Christianity. But as the apostasy processes developed, which found their manifestation in the Vatican, when religion was gradually replaced by papal infallibility, statehood began to decline, whose importance greatly diminished with the advent of capitalism, as necessary condition industrialization of social production. Actually, the very principle of industrialization demanded capital - this is how the economic system was first changed, and then the political one, when the monarchy became unnecessary for the adherents of "freedom, equality and brotherhood" in the accumulation of their own capital and influence. So the world was divided not according to the state principle, but according to spheres of influence, becoming supranational.
The USSR developed according to the same principles as the rest of the world, only it was based on the principle of party socialism, as the only possible one at a time when it was dangerous even to think about monarchy, and loyalty to the communist party was the only way to maintain state socialism external form party slavery, which had no roots in the Russian people, who saw in the USSR their own hope for a bright future for their children. The Russian people are always aimed at the future, but they are anxious about their past - this was not understood by the party functionaries who tried to forcibly cancel the past and come up with a utopian future, for the sake of which it was worth forcing society to work. However, these chimeras of the party future destroyed themselves, since socialism cannot exist without a true monarchy, therefore, from the 70s, the CPSU took a course to change the socio-economic formation, the slogan "Forward to communism!" Was replaced by another, but this the principle of capitalism in the communal consciousness of the Russian people did not find its continuation, since it turned out to be alien to the Russian soul, which requires service to the Fatherland, as to its family and its kind. That is why the current society, even those of its representatives who never lived under the USSR, has nurtured a new non-party socialism, which cannot but be monarchical.
K.N. Leontiev not only indicates the time of the implementation of the new monarchical socialism - the XXI century, but also names the name of the monarch! Truly, amazing prophecies made back in 1889! I would like to dwell in more detail on the date of their implementation: 1. The first date is hidden in the inscription in the Ipatiev House at the place of execution royal family, 2. The second date is hidden in the inscriptions on the icon of the Nativity Holy Mother of God compiled according to the prophecy of the monk Abel in the middle of the 19th century. In the basement of the Ipatiev House by an unknown hand, which, according to witness testimony, belonged to the rabbi, it was inscribed: 1918 148467878 87888 The first line is clear: this is the year of the execution of Nicholas II, the second line is read through one digit: 1 - 8 - 6 - 8, year birth of Nicholas II (1868), the numbers 44778 remain. They are deciphered as follows: 4 - 1904 (the beginning of the war with Japan), 4 - 1914 (the beginning Patriotic War 1914), 7 - 1917 (forcible removal from the throne of Nicholas II, Provisional Government), 7 - 1917 ( October Revolution), 8 - 1918 (execution of Nicholas II and the royal martyrs). The third line: 87888. Presumably it is deciphered as follows: 8 - the eighth generation from Paul I, this is a direct indication of the future Tsar, then the year of his birth and dates associated with the history of Russia and the biography of the future Tsar, as well as the time of the beginning of his ministry.
But there is one more decoding of this set of numbers: the Orthodox Church considers the date of the creation of the world as 5509 BC, and this tradition came from Byzantium. However, there is, among others, one more date of the creation of the world - 5872 according to the Septuagint, from 70 interpreters. At the same time, we remember that a real miracle happened to one of the interpreters, Simeon - he did not die until he was convinced of the validity of the prophecy recorded in the Old Testament. So, perhaps, the chronology according to the Septuagint is more correct than according to the Byzntine tradition? We come to the main, paradoxical conclusion: if we add the current 2016 to 5872, we get an astounding date - 7888. What then does the eight in front of 7888 mean? August! That is, from the current August 2016, the promise that was inscribed on the wall of the Ipatiev House began. Precisely because these numbers were written in the basement of the house, where the terrible crime of the XX century took place, which ended one period of the existence of Russia and began a new, last existence of the Russian State, when state socialism was to be established, the only possible way industrialization of Russia - the USSR, it can be said with all certainty that this is a real prophecy, and not a whim of an unknown rabbi. Consequently, from this moment began the transition period from the current socio-economic formation to the socialist monarchy. And yet, this combination of numbers means a short-term transition from the present century to the future century - only one is missing for the fullness of the future century!
When will the time of the socialist monarchy come in Russia? According to the prophecy, on the wall of the Ipatiev House - in 2018, moreover, the number 8 was known in advance to the Order of Malta, which is of colossal importance in today's Russia (however, the post-war steps of I.V. Stalin indirectly confirm that the Leader had certain agreements with the order - the performer of the prophecies of the Old and New Testaments). So, B. Yeltsin was preparing the Kremlin for 1998, when not only the restoration was carried out, but all the attributes of the tsarist power were recreated, up to the inscription of the monogram Г on the cutlery (George, from the prophecy of K. N. Leontiev), and in the Cathedral of Christ The Savior installed two royal thrones under the painting of the anointing of the kingdom of Saul by the prophet Samuel. The next year was 2008, when a series of political events was again expected, leading to the restoration of socialism in Russia and the introduction of monarchical rule. Now 2018 is on the cusp. However, interpreters forget about the inscription of Abel's prophecy on the icon of the Nativity of the Virgin, where, with correct decoding, with the exact use of the rules for denoting years in the Slavic language, 2017 is obtained, which corresponds to the Hebrew chronology of Noah, because it is on October 3, 2016 that the next year 5777 begins, where three sevens have connected in an amazing way! That is, according to the prophecy of Abel, the monarchy in Russia will be revived in 2017, and the coronation of the Tsar will take place close to the date of the Nativity of the Virgin (September 21). Consequently, 2018 will be the year of the beginning of the monarch's ministry at the head of Russia.
But how is this possible, because today there are no signs not that the birth (restoration) of socialism, but there are no prerequisites for a monarchy in Russia? “But He said: the impossible for men is possible for God” (Luke 18-27), suffice it to recall that on March 2, 1917, the Russian Empire ceased to exist together with the forcible removal from the throne of Tsar Emperor Nicholas II, and on October 25, six months later , the October Socialist Revolution took place, which consolidated socialism in Russia and gave a new direction to the history of our state. Six months were enough to finally change the face of Russia, its political system, society and property rights. Is it really impossible today? Judging by the mood of society, by its desire for universal justice and equality before the law, unwillingness to serve as a slave to capital and its rules, the reverse transition from capitalism to socialism may take even less time than in 1917, because socialist principles are still alive in Russian society XXI century, which cannot be said about the XX century during the tsarist monarchy. At the same time, non-partisan socialism (parties, from the CPSU to the LDPR and the United Russia Party, clearly demonstrated their uselessness in the absence of a strong leader) can only be monarchical and nothing else, which is reflected in the works of K. N. Leontiev and other thinkers who are not connected the utopias of the communist movement.
Generally say:
1) The state should be colorful, it is difficult, strong, class and with caution mobile. - Generally harshly, sometimes to the point of ferocity.
2) The church should be more independent than the present one. The hierarchy should be bolder, more powerful, more concentrated. The church should soften statehood, and not vice versa.
3) Everyday life should be poetic, diverse in national unity, isolated from the West. Or, for example, not to dance at all, but to pray to God; and if you dance, then in your own way, invent or develop the folk to graceful sophistication, etc.
4) Laws, principles of power should be stricter; people should try to be personally kinder; - one will balance the other.
5) Science must develop in a spirit of deep contempt for its benefits.
If Russia does not follow either this path indicated by me (along the path that naturally emerged from the former Slavophilism), or along the path of another discipline - along the road to Rome indicated by Solovyov - then it (Russia) will at first dissolve in a very liberal and colorless all-Slavism; and then it will last no worse than France for a hundred years, sinking rapidly lower and lower and will perish! Imagine that in 5 years 0 some of the whole West will merge(little by little tired of the new European wars) into one liberal and a nihilistic republic. If by that time the Slavs, only those who are backward from the general destruction, but not deeply isolated in spirit, for their part, will not want (due to some kind of good backwardness) to merge with this Europe, but will be only or constitutional kingdom, monotonous liberal in the general system, then the republican all-Europe will come to Petersburg, Kiev, Constantinople and say: "Give up your dynasty or leave no stone unturned and devastate the whole country." And we will merge with the lovely utilitarian republic of the West. But if we are ourselves, then we will overturn the whole of Asia with glory to them- even Muslim and pagan, and we will only have to save the monuments of art there.
Amazing prophecy of K. N. Leontiev! 100 years after this letter was written (an error of 50 years does not matter, since there is no exact date), the West really merged into a liberal, nihilistic republic of the European Union, which denies the very need for national statehood - this is precisely its nihilism, when, before the confederation, like the United States, there was only one step left, Russia independently, of its own free will, entered this European quagmire of liberalism. "Monotonously - a liberal constitutional kingdom", according to the prophecy of K. N. Leontiev, Russia became after the coup of August 1991, when the West really offered the members of the CPSU Central Committee to abandon their self-identity, to destroy the USSR for the sake of the capitalist future, where the leading violin was undoubtedly played by the leading the capitalist powers that have completely changed the great music of state socialism in their own way and their score in a few years. So in the street dust of incompetent idle talkers fell the great Power, bearing the name of Stalin, by which it was created and by whose fruits it is still alive.
Two great people - Nicholas II and JV Stalin did not allow Russia to disappear, did not dissolve it in the melting pot of Western liberalism, but managed to preserve Russian self-identity, at the cost of incredible courage and loyalty to Russia. For the Russian soul, its culture and faith, its monarchical future, when the mystical component of power will inspire many Russian people to sacrificial service to Russia, Nicholas II is still responsible, who took the burden of treachery and perjury of the Russian people on his shoulders. For a bright mind, a desire for creative work, an understanding of his personal responsibility for the fate of the Motherland, whose saving ideology was state socialism - the only possible way to industrialize the country under the conditions of international capitalism, is still responsible for J.V. Stalin, who showed the uniqueness of Russian socialism, inaccessible to any another nation. With such dedication to love the Motherland and be ready not to regret even your life for an idea, only a Russian person can, who is able to simultaneously accommodate God and man. And this Man, brought up in the patriarchal Rus of the Rurikovichs - Romanovs, armed with a sword forged by I.V. Stalin, is capable, according to the apt words of K.N. Leontiev, to overthrow all of Asia on Europe, devastating it from the shame of moral and physical sodomy.
Moreover, the Russian world today, as never before, is ready to unite in a military alliance with China, and this Asian army of Gog and Magog has no worthy rival in the modern world, no one wants to associate with the strength and might of this army, in which Chinese pragmatism will unite with the victorious glory of the Russian warrior. Tremble Europe, kneel down the US knee, hide bashfully eternal intriguer England - see what power and glory are coming to a world lying in the evil of intrigue and betrayal! And the main blow of the united army of Russia and China needs to be dealt on the American vassals in the Middle East, mixing puppet monarchies with the sand of the Syrian desert, which are nothing of themselves, but still capable of striking a sneaky stab in the back under the cover of the United States. This is what K.N. Leontiev says in his "Letters on Eastern Affairs" of 1882:
Ambulance and undoubted(judging by the general state of political affairs) a successful war is a must allow eastern question and approve Russia on the Bosphorus, will give us an immediate way out of our moral and political disorder, which we will in vain look for in internal changes. It goes without saying that Constantinople cannot become the administrative capital for the Russian Empire, like St. Petersburg. It doesn't even have to be a part or province of an empire. This great world center with the adjacent districts of Thrace and Asia Minor must personally belong to the sovereign-emperor (like Finland or former Poland). There by itself under a similar condition, those new orders will begin that can serve as the highest uniting cultural and state example for a 1000-year-old, undoubtedly already tired and from the age of 61 sick emancipation of Russia... Then there will be Two Russias, inextricably linked in the person of the sovereign; Russia is an empire with an administrative capital (in Kiev) and Russia is the head of the Great Eastern Union with a new the cultural capital on the Bosphorus.
KN Leontiev's wonderful and awaiting implementation prophecy about the need to complete the Turkish campaign of 1916 with a victory over the Saracens. There is no and never will be any confidence in Turkey, which today is under the rule of the Great East of France - the second most cunning country after England, the state of Europe, whose emissaries constantly humiliate Russia, forcing us to take part in other people's wars. But the final and irrevocable limit of this Masonic policy has come, you just need to set yourself the goal of capturing the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, and the success of the military campaign will not be long in coming, moreover, the success of the fleeting war and the Russian flag erected over Ankara will be demonstrated to the whole world, but most importantly , China, that the Russians were forever entrenched in the Middle East, having cut their own door to the Mediterranean, connecting the Black Sea with the Red Sea, which was so afraid of London, because this state of affairs means the end of British rule in Syria and Persia. Of course, the Middle East war of Russia will not only strengthen the Russian Power, but will change the balance of power in the world, will make it possible to erase from the history of our country all those nihilistic motives that tormented the Russian land for a hundred years, humiliated its culture and national identity, its Orthodox, trusting soul. This tragic emancipation of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, mistaken for the "golden age" of Russian culture, in fact turned out to be a pagan renaissance, like the European one, whose poisonous shoots led to the 1917 revolution, plunged the Russian people into a fratricidal Civil war, turned the powerful USSR into its pitiful likeness in the 90s. But today everything is changing rapidly, the State is acquiring its meaning, which was predicted in the 19th century by the outstanding Russian thinker and seer Konstantin Leontyev, predicting Russia not only the future strengthening of the statehood of the Russian land, but its social system, which has never been in human history, and will never be ... State socialism, multiplied by the Russian monarchy, combining "Chinese statehood and Indian mystical power", will make the whole world look differently at Russia, which ten years ago was considered a second-rate Power, and today we are ready to recognize its dominant character in international affairs , without which the main thing, for the sake of which the thousand-year history of the Order of Malta was created - the reconstruction of the Third Temple and the accession of the Jerusalem king, cannot happen. This unity of Divine Providence and its struggle of opposites between two universal worldviews - Russia and Israel, contains all the salt of the previous generations of two thousand years, preparing what should happen soon. We have been given a unique opportunity - to be at the very edge of these global events, anticipating the end of human history on an earthly scale, when, through a fiery leap, one step will be replaced by another, the temporal will change to the eternal, where the place of each is determined by him today. Today, on the eve of 2017, you need to look back at your path traveled, leaving behind what prevents you from walking light, and take only what will come in handy along the way, the price of which is eternity.
Fedoseev A.N. Maksimov V.V.
Do you think that the re-creation of socialism in modern Russia, freed from the party diktat of the times of the USSR, is not just predicted by the greatest Russian philosopher Konstantin Leontyev, the need for an early reindustrialization of Russia, as the only possible economic - social formation, which gives the necessary result in the shortest possible time, but also as the foundation of a social monarchy, which most fully reflects the desire of the Russian people for an authoritarian method of government, which guarantees the progressive development of Russia in the absence of corruption, nepotism and an ever-growing bureaucracy that hinders the development of the country and creates an opportunity for the West to introduce agents influence in the ruling elite, is it the combination of socialism and the monarchical mode of government that can give the necessary impetus to the development of Russia on the eve of global catastrophes and the Third World War in the Middle East, where the role of Russia today is unusually high?
In 1919, the book of the philosopher O. Spengler "Prussianism and Socialism" was published, in which the author criticized the ideas of Karl Marx's class society and his theory economic development, offering his vision of a way out of Germany from the crisis of the Versailles Treaty. O. Spengler, relying on the desire of the Prussians for collective labor, for a heightened sense of justice, brought out a new type of socialist relations in the state, where driving force it is not a party parliament or the liberalism of Anglo-Saxon capitalism, but a people united for the sake of one goal. In such a state system, called state socialism, the official becomes "the first servant of his people", and already "it is not the nation that forms the state, but the state of the nation." From this extremely interesting work, I would like to dwell on two fundamental conclusions made by O. Spengler and directly related to modern Russia.
The first conclusion about the emerging party socialism in Russia, which will replace capitalism:
In Russia, it will be replaced by the only possible popular form under such conditions in the form of a new tsarism of any type, and it can be assumed that this system will be closer to the Prussian-socialist forms than to the parliamentary-capitalist ones. However, the future, hidden deep in the depths of Russia, lies not in the resolution of political and social difficulties, but in the preparation for the birth of a new religion, the third of the rich opportunities in Christianity.
In this foresight of the events that took place in Russia, O. Spengler predicted the state system that replaced capitalism and received the greatest flowering during the Great Patriotic War and the subsequent revival of the country. State socialism, created by J.V. Stalin with the help of the State Defense Committee (GKO), was non-partisan and its only driving force was the Russian people, who shouldered not only the hardships and blood of the war, but also the subsequent restoration of the country. This decade has shown that state socialism, led by the leader of the Russian people, possesses a tremendous, previously unprecedented force capable of carrying out grandiose tasks. Relying on the creative energy of the Russian people, state socialism brought to life not only the creative potential of the intelligentsia and labor collectives, but created social conditions for collectivism and comradeship in all sectors of the national economy, when no one separated himself from the whole organism of his country and his people.
Satisfaction with the results of their labor, with the growing prosperity of the working people and the might of their country, made our entire people the true masters of their Motherland, the creators of its future, and these social imperatives became dominant in our society for many decades to come. The impulse given to the entire society by state socialism turned out to be so strong that neither the Khrushchev thaw, nor the Brezhnev stagnation, nor Gorbachev's perestroika could break it, but only the treacherous essence of market capitalism with its total lies could change the socialist foundations of development our society. But, further development capitalist relations in Russia showed the entire inconsistency of this false path for the Russian people, which increasingly began to mentally turn to the bygone socialist era, in many ways forgiving her party leaderism and the closed nature of the party nomenclature.
A new economic and political order is knocking on our Russian doors, in which the national interests of the country and the people should become the fundamental principles of state development. Capitalism is not a nationally oriented social system, since the achievement of personal gain only divides the people, making it dependent on the will of a small group of people, hiding behind party rhetoric and the demagogy of pluralism of opinions. Parliament became the spokesman for the will of oligarchic, monopoly capitalism, and not of its voters - the peoples of Russia, thereby finally discrediting not only the liberal - democratic ideas of development modern society, but also social democracy, which admits the identity of different forms of ownership. That is why the question of the transition to a nationally oriented economy and social policy, which will reflect the people's needs and aspirations, has long been ripe among the Russian people.
Such a vector national development Russia and the Russian people, undoubtedly, must become socialism as the fairest form of state relations, but devoid of party leadership. However, the question arises: who will shape the state policy and the national economy, who will be entrusted with the fate of the people and the country? This is the birth of the “third religion” in Christianity, about which O. Spengler spoke in his work. What kind of religion is this? O. Spengler answers:
Socialist monarchy - for authoritarian socialism is monarchical, the most responsible position in a grandiose organism, the place of the first servant of this state, in the words of Frederick the Great, cannot be placed at the disposal of private careerism - this is an idea that slowly matured in the world of Faustian humanity and has long nurtured for itself a special human type.
Socialist or popular monarchy, this is a new kind of state-folk religion, which has never been in any state structure... It is not without reason that O. Spengler says that authoritarian (state) socialism is monarchical, since the ideas of state development are formed in a non-partisan society, where the leadership of the country is not dominated by the party ethics of the decisions made, and there is no party authoritarianism trying to preserve itself by any means , even to the detriment of national interests. But there is “the first servant of his people”, who was elected by direct vote from among his peers and others, who deserved this title by wanting exclusively for the national and state welfare, but not for his personal success. Such authoritarianism of the people's power is based only on the desire for national development, the recognition of their state as a powerful exponent of the people's will and is aimed at improving social relations in the country.
With the development of productive forces and relations of production, which form a new type of social structure in Russia, when everyone perceives himself as a part, moreover, inseparable, of the whole organism, the prerequisites are created for the creation of autocratic power, as the apotheosis of state socialism. The absence of careerism, which may well be formed in the conditions of developed socialism, when the first contradictions between the new and the bygone system have been overcome, will become a guarantee of the people's desire for the Autocrat as the leader of socialist transformations in the country. Until that time, all decisions are made collegially, since democracy cannot rely on the will of only one person, when the highest state administration is formed at the congress of people's deputies. But in collegiality there is a potential danger of the desire to maintain one's power further, and the lack of personnel rotation may lead to the creation of a political party of the country's top leadership in the future. That is why it is so important to make, already at the first stage, the main goal of creating a social, people's monarchy, based on the entire Russian people, expressing in itself the true "first servant of his people."
It is also important to pay attention to one more aspect - the appointment of personnel to government posts. The monarch does not need to look back at the popularity of this or that candidate among the people, often won by skillful and ardent speeches, but not by the triumph of talent and dedication in business. The monarch, as God's Anointed One, always looks much further than narrowly specialized issues of state administration, assigning certain responsibilities to the person who fully meets the strategy of the country's future development. No collegial, let alone public, judgments can replace the one on whom God Himself has entrusted a special responsibility to be the shepherd of his people. This hierarchal service is available only to one person who has become the head of state socialism - the Autocrat!
When laying the foundations of state socialism, one cannot but respond to criticism that will surely appear both within the social groups of our multinational people, and in the Western mass media, capable of sowing bewilderment or doubt in the Russian nation.
1. The exploitation of man by man is replaced by the exploitation of man by the state. This state of affairs is possible only under war communism, when everyone's public debt is exchanged for the same set of goods and products for everyone, preferably according to the rationing system, and the whole society lives in complete dependence on the decisions made by a narrow group of people who usurped this right through party demagogy. Socialist relations do not abolish commodity-money relations, but transfer them into the mainstream of state planning for the fullest satisfaction of the needs of the entire society. Wages no longer depend on the will of the employer, but become a systemic incentive to further improve the skills of each worker. Moreover, interest in the final results of one's labor is also stimulated, as well as an increase in labor productivity, which ultimately leads to a decrease in retail prices for goods. The state cares not only about the compulsory work for each member of society, but also about everyday, social needs, providing numerous services and housing free of charge, taking care of the rest and health of the people. Labor is honorable, but the development of the cultural and national characteristics of our people should also not lag behind the growth of the productive forces. Thus, the state does not act as an exploiter of the worker, but takes care of its citizens in every possible way, creating the future of the country and the people here and now, and not in the distant future.
2. The lack of economic freedom suppresses the economic activity of citizens, makes them not interested in innovative and inventive activity. First of all, it should be noted that monopoly capitalism, and any capitalist relations, necessarily strive for monopoly, because it is in this way that the greatest profit is achieved - the main the idea of any entrepreneur, not interested in the economic freedom of citizens. At the initial formation of capitalist relations, private entrepreneurship creates a middle class from itself, giving the largest number work places. But with the formation of monopoly capitalism and the introduction of machines and equipment that increase labor productivity, more and more workers find themselves on the street. Manual labor is replaced by machine labor and the middle class eventually ceases to exist, turning into trade managers. On the contrary, state socialism is interested in reducing the cost of working time per unit of labor and increasing labor productivity even more than the capitalist, since this allows constantly creating new industries, breaking outdated ones. At the same time, taking into account the planned replacement of machines and equipment, there is an incentive to create new, more productive machines and mechanisms that make it possible to release workers to create new industries and new goods and services. Reducing costs leads to lower prices and an increase in welfare, which is why stimulating the creative process is a priority task of socialism.
3. State-owned enterprises are removed from the influence of demand on their goods. This leads to a shortage of necessary goods and an overproduction of unnecessary ones. This has not always been the case. During the state socialism of J.V. Stalin, the main emphasis was placed on commodity production and quantity, as well as the quality of the goods produced. Nobody canceled the laws of value, the payback of production and costs per unit of output, as well as the credit and money turnover gave a clear picture of not only the importance of the production of a given product, but also its place in the national economy. The efficiency of state planning is not only in knowing what kind of goods will be needed now and in a year, but in creating the production of the necessary goods. This planning should include both state trade, and surveys of workers, and the prospect of an increase in demand for certain types of goods as well-being grows. The state order for the release of goods must take into account the specifics of the enterprise where the order is placed, the capabilities of its equipment and labor collective, as well as monetary incentives for enterprises to increase the range of products. At the same time, it is important not to admit the mistakes of "Khrushchev-Brezhnev" socialism, when the commodity indicator of the output was replaced by a monetary equivalent, which was the possibility of creating subscripts and thereby false planning in the economy. The same thing is happening in today's Russia, when state statistics operate not with commodity indicators, but with monetary ones, which completely do not take into account inflationary processes and the growth in the cost of production.
4. Guaranteed employment and the system of state distribution gives rise to dependency and disinterest in the results of one's work. Guaranteed employment does not necessarily lead to dependency, since it is important to consider the ability of the collective to influence each of its members. It is important to create interest in the results not only of personal labor, but of the entire team, up to the director of the enterprise. Stimulating an increase in labor productivity, reducing costs per unit of output is a prerequisite for the progressive development of the socialist economy, and here you cannot save money, look back at the opinion of other industry producers, but boldly involve them in competition based on the results of their labor. Not an obligatory "thirteenth salary" or a quarterly bonus that does not reflect the final product in any way, but one-time payments to the entire workforce based on the results of their production activities. At the same time, it is important that the size of the bonus for each participant in the labor process is determined by the team itself, and not by the administration, which will put physical and mental workers in mutual dependence. At the same time, members of the labor collective who do not want to improve their qualifications, who do not take part in the general movement to improve production efficiency, will be expelled not only from the distribution of remuneration, but also from the labor process that leads them to less paid work. So the dependent will become an outcast in his own team, which will force him either not to take someone else's place, or try to join the team.
5. There is no self-cleaning of the economy. Unprofitable and ineffective enterprises are subsidized by the state at the expense of profitable ones. Such a system leads to stable growth of unprofitable enterprises and inevitably causes the collapse of the economy. Answering this question, it is important to turn to the legacy of J.V. Stalin, who noted that the most profitable enterprises are light industry enterprises that give the maximum profit, in other words, the production of consumer goods. At the same time, enterprises producing means of production, metallurgical, chemical, engineering industries pay off in the long term. It is important to remember that the greater the division of labor in the country's economy, the richer and more stable it is, therefore, only the production of consumer goods cannot give stable growth to the entire economy of the country. Moreover, the current demand crisis has shown the real significance of the orientation of the national economy to domestic demand, to the widest division of labor, when demand can be stimulated by simple diversification of industry, switching it to meeting domestic demand in the modernization of production, in the creation of new directions in industry. Nobody has canceled the laws of economic development, supply and demand, prices and profits, but in socialist production they carry a statistical load more than a practical one. That is why long-term planning and deferred payback make the economy more stable than the curtailment of production under capitalism, when profits begin to fall. But no one asked the question, what to do with people when the production is closed that is not profitable. Under capitalism, they all end up on the street, the socialist mode of production implies the creation of new industries aimed at domestic demand. That is why state socialism is more flexible and aimed at meeting the needs of all working people, and not a handful of businessmen transferring unprofitable enterprises to countries with low wages, leaving their own people to the mercy.
6. Socialism deprives a person of the right to free labor and the right to the results of his labor, which violates one of the most important natural human rights. It must be assumed that this is the right to own your own real estate, created as a result of personal achievements in business, the possibility of expanding your investments and, as a result, enjoying the results of your labor, without limiting yourself to the framework of public morality. On the contrary, it is socialism that makes a person's labor truly free, since he does not have to strive to sell his labor at a higher price, entering into irreparable contradictions with the employer striving to buy this labor as cheaply as possible, thereby increasing his profit. Dependence on the will of the employer, the conjuncture of demand for the final product, changes in the exchange prices for raw materials and other "joys" of the capitalist world, make the working man not only not free, but also a slave of circumstances. Constant changes in tax legislation, the cost of housing and communal services, rising prices, forcing the worker to look for a new application own forces when it is not satisfaction from the results of one's own labor that motivates a person, but the desire to “make ends meet”, becoming even more dependent on the employer. The desire to take advantage of the benefits received from their labor leads the working capitalist world to dependence on bankers who issue loans for the purchase of goods and housing, and, consequently, to fear of losing their jobs and the ability to pay interest on debt. None of this exists under socialism, where everyone is guaranteed equal social and property rights, when no external and internal circumstances can affect the state's fulfillment of its social obligations. Labor in a socialist state is the most free, since the worker does not solve the problem with many unknowns, correlating his wages with the costs of his maintenance, which are secondary in relation to social guarantees and an increase in wages as a result of an increase in the efficiency of work not only of one person, but of the whole the team as a whole.
7. Government planning and monopoly deprives citizens of the choice of goods. First of all, we need to see how this is solved in modern monopoly capitalism, because the capitalist also needs to plan the release of promising goods, to know the required quantity and quality of goods, their distribution by social groups and many other factors that affect the production of goods. Statistics and planning are as essential qualities of capitalism as they are of socialism. But in one case, the capitalist strives to protect himself from possible mistakes when determining the prospects for various kinds of goods, often without investing significant funds in the modernization of production, since he is not sure of the amount of profit received and only changes the beautiful wrapper on the old "candy", misleading buyers. In another case, socialist planning can not only expand the range of goods produced, but reorganize production for the release of new ones, in accordance not with momentary profit, but with the fullest satisfaction of the needs of the given commodity. It is important not to operate in monetary terms, but exclusively in commodity terms, since only in this case it is possible to take into account the need and satisfaction of this need, as well as the focus of this enterprise on expanding its commodity production, which will allow the workforce to receive additional remuneration for their contribution to development economy of the whole country. So, timely satisfaction of the need for various kinds of goods helps to increase the division of labor in the country, strengthening its economy.
Thus, the advantages of state socialism over the capitalist mode of production are obvious and do not require much confirmation. State socialism is deeply national and monarchical in its essence, since it is aimed, first of all, at the fullest satisfaction of all the needs of the Russian nation, the improvement and growth of national culture and traditions, the strengthening of state power and the creation of social guarantees for all, without exception, citizens of Russia. This is the only way for the further existence of our people and our country, any other way will lead us to division into parts and colonial enslavement by transnational companies, the destruction of national characteristics and the number of the Russian people. Only genuine democracy in combination with state, non-party socialism can give a powerful impetus to the development of our country and people, where the ultimate goal lies in the spiritual uplift of our entire society, in the revival of the victorious people.
Most of the ideas of social monarchism are now widespread in France. This is not surprising, because France was the first country to fall victim to the Moloch modern world... Where bastard liberal values were affirmed under the clang of the guillotine.
Website of the French Social-Monarchists
Vladimir Karpets
Once again about social monarchism
Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin, head of the Synodal Department for Relations between Church and Society, made an important statement: Russia needs a political system that combines elements of a rigid centralized government and a welfare state. And further: "Power, justice and solidarity are three values on the basis of which we need to build a system that would unite monarchy and socialism."
Personally, the author of these lines really does not like the expression "combining elements". In fact, you need - fully, self- and all-supremely - both. But in essence - everything is correct.
We know that historically in Russia - and not practically everywhere - the very ideas of monarchy and socialism are in opposition, or rather, opposition. However, within it there is a "system error": monarchy is a type of state and, accordingly, everything connected with it belongs to the political sphere, and socialism is primarily a socio-economic category. Strictly speaking, these are things located in different planes, and they can neither be rigidly correlated with each other, nor be rigidly opposed to each other. Nevertheless, in the history of Russia, they confronted, and this confrontation led to disastrous consequences. Why?
Socialism of the 19th century was associated with the so-called "Enlightenment" and the anti-traditional, antimonarchist and anti-church revolutions generated by it, acted as an external means of implementing the Gnostic doctrines of the "dissolution" of the world, the very "creation" of which was considered by the young Marx as the beginning of "alienation" (to deny an important content side of these doctrines is impossible). Such socialism still looks like the only one for many of its researchers, including the outstanding Russian mathematician and historian I.R.Shafarevich (in the book "Socialism as a Phenomenon of World History").
Indeed, in 1917 the monarchy collapsed and was replaced by theomachist atheistic socialism, which, nevertheless, gradually - starting from the late 1930s - began to acquire some traditional Russian features. But socialism also collapsed - along with the territorial integrity of Russia. We have experienced a crash accident twice in one century. There were both internal and external reasons for this.
However, the great thinker and political seer Konstantin Nikolaevich Leontiev realized earlier than others that socialism itself is ambiguous and double-edged. "If socialism has a future not as a nihilistic rebellion and delusion of all-negation, but as a legal organization of labor and capital, as a new corporate forced enslavement of human societies, then this new order will be created in Russia, which does not harm either the Church or higher civilization, no one can except the Monarchical government ", - he predicted back in the 80s years XIX century ,.
K. N. Leontiev considered the fate of socialism similar to the fate of historical Christianity: "My feeling prophesies to me that the Slavic Orthodox tsar- he wrote, - someday he will take the socialist movement into his hands (for example, Constantine of Byzantium took the religious movement into his hands), and with the blessing of the Church, he will establish a socialist form of life in the place of the bourgeois-liberal one. And this socialism will be a new and harsh threefold slavery: to the communities, the Church and the Tsar. "
It is this kind of system that turns out to be the apostolic “deterring” from the coming of the “lawless” antichrist ((2 Sol. 2, 1-4, 6-8), in today's reading - the “new world order” and its supposed leader.
At the same time, the problem of "Russian socialism" or "Orthodox socialism" cannot at all be considered within the framework of the well-known political-ideological and state studies schemes. However, here the so-called "Fourth Political Theory" (hereinafter - 4PT) turns out to be quite appropriate, put forward simultaneously and in mutual close cooperation by two outstanding thinkers of our time by the Frenchman Alain de Benois and the Russian Alexander Dugin. We can find a detailed description of their work in the book of Professor A.G. Dugin "The Fourth Way" (M., "Academic Project", 2014) The very concept of 4PT was put forward in view of the complete exhaustion of the political ideas of the Modern era - liberalism, communism and fascism (Nazism), based on the categories of linear time and progress, which are a manifestation of the "Western Logos".
Alexander Dugin, relying on the philosophy of Martin Heidegger, both in the dilogy dedicated to this thinker (“Martin Heidegger: the philosophy of another beginning”, M, 2010, “Martin Heidegger: the possibility of Russian philosophy”, M, 2011), and in “The fourth way ”Shows that the“ idea of progress ”associated with the“ oblivion of Being ”is embedded in Western thinking long before the Nativity of Christ and is immanently present in Plato, Socrates and even Heraclitus. According to Heidegger, we are talking about "forgetting Being" (Seyn), replacing it with "being" as "the highest being" (Sein) and - inevitably - existing as such (Seinde).
The main consequence of "forgetting Being" in politics is liberalism, the main subject of which is the individual (mind). The second political theory - Marxism - with "class-centrism" - and the third (fascism and National Socialism), placing the nation (also a product of the liberal-bourgeois revolutions of the 17th-18th centuries) or the state at the forefront - were only unsuccessful attempts to overcome liberalism. Their "secondary" "dependence" and led to their collapse. Today liberalism triumphs, while destroying itself in Postmodernism.
None of the three political subjects of Modernity - neither the individual (mind), nor the class, nor the nation - can be the subject of 4PT, as well as their mechanical combinations. But, since the basis of Modernity is still liberalism, the myth of the individual must be overcome first of all. But it can be overcome not by collectivism (as in communism or fascism), but only by an appeal to the “transcendental man”.
What is the subject of 4PT? The main thing, according to Dugin, is precisely "to get away from the dualism of subject and object." He refers to the concept of Dasein ("That is-Being)", the place where Being is in Being, "judgment about Being", "being-to-death." But, Dugin goes further. If the "Western logos" is not the only one, then there are many "Dazains" (he deliberately writes in Russian). Dugin says: “This is how the royal Revolution of space can be proclaimed. This means that Russkoe Mesto (Russia) must switch the mode of existence - from inauthentic to authentic. Only this can give the King the opportunity to manifest. The task is not to summon the Tsar, not to elect him, not to create him, and even less to become a "Tsar" himself, but to give the Tsar the opportunity to be, appear, open himself ... He does not need this, we need this - to have a Tsar "
Social-monarchism can be considered a Russian (namely Russian) reading of 4PT as a more general concept. In this case, the subject of the theory of social-monarchism (within the framework of the 4PT) thus turns out to be the "ontological pair" Tsar-Narod (this is the "Russian Dazain") Perhaps, this is "recognized" by Marina Tsvetaeva in the best way:
It's as simple as blood and sweat:
The Tsar is for the people, the Tsar is for the people.
This is as clear as the mystery of the two:
Two are near, and the third is Spirit.
By the people, of course, of course, not the present majority, but the totality of all those who have passed away, alive and not yet born. The king was sent from above, and not chosen, much less hired for money. This, among other things, is the deep kinship of the Kingdom and the sacrament of marriage.
And here, of course, first of all, the famous icon of the 16th century "Militant Church" from the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin should be mentioned. It depicts not a bishop, not a metropolitan or a patriarch, but a Tsar on horseback ("equestrian") at the head of the Militant Church, defeating the "ancient serpent" and fighting against it.
The Russian Tsar was originally Tsar White and Red. By itself, this symbolism underlies the symbolism of death and Resurrection, which coincides with the symbolism of the Kingdom of Heaven and the earthly kingdom as its image. On Great Saturday - the day of Jesus Christ's descent into hell - during the Liturgy, the priests change the black Lenten vestments for white, and on the morning of Holy Easter - white for red. Among the ancient Aryans, white is the color of the priestly varna, red is the royal military, black is the slave, dependent state.
The White Tsar and the Red Tsar are one and the same. As we will see later, this is the metaphysical basis of the Fourth Political Theory for the Russians, the Russian world, Russia as a state. Metaphysical basis of social monarchism.
In old-timers, pre-Petrine and pre-schismatic Russia, the symbolism of black, white and red permeated state life in its very foundations. "Black" state - heavy or bound by vows - black clergy, white settlements - on the contrary, free .. But black - red (Red Sea). "Cherna az and chermena" - says the Bride in the Church Slavonic translation of "Song of Songs". And the White Tsar is originally a “tsar not a tributary,” an autocrat, a sovereign, identical to the Russian Tsar, that is, the Red Tsar, blood. Hence the red royal robes, a red cloak, red banners and banners of the Rurikids, in addition to the fact that the red color of the robes - purple, porphyry - was inherited by the Rurik and then the Romanovs as a privilege of the Orthodox Tsars to commemorate the Resurrection of Christ.
“Give the blood and receive the Spirit,” said the ancient Fathers of the Church (St. Peter of Damascus, Venerable Abba Longini, others).
The blood is twofold. It consists of two main components - the red corpuscles and the white corpuscles. White and red symbols accompany the entire history of the human race.
The beginning of the Russian turmoil of the twentieth century - the destruction of the Tsarist power as the focus of one blood and one spirit - white and red. "Whites" and "Reds" went against each other. This is identical with the separation of white and red calves in the savage medical experience.
But in fact, the “October coup” was the “black” component of the hermetic formula .. It was not the Whites or the Reds, and not the Bolsheviks, but the anarchists that were absolutely adequate to the “blacker than the black rabble”. Anarchy is the mother of (literally) order. She is the antecedent, Mother of Cheese Earth. Hiding the Tsar in herself, she is called to raise him.
Ominous and deserted churchyard,
Where the royal barmas are buried
(Nikola Klyuev)
Russia is one and indivisible not only in space but also in time. Proceeding from this, when developing the foundations of social monarchism as the Fourth Political Theory for Russia, it is necessary to talk about the complete and unconditional mutual continuity of all historical epochs, first of all the last three - Moscow, "Romanov" and Soviet - over and above all the troubles. Muscovite Russia contains the "formula" of the Orthodox Kingdom, the Russian Empire gives legal succession (rejected in February 1917), primarily the fundamentally unshakable Laws of Succession to the throne, Soviet Union- invaluable social, organizational and military experience, the rejection of which is so painfully experienced today. In this sense, only social monarchism can become the outcome and result of the "red-white" struggle
The monarchical type of state is the only one in which the category not of time, but of “aeon” or “moving eternity” (definition of Vl.Lossky) manifests itself. In the language of Orthodoxy, it looks like this: "God, in the image of His heavenly one-man rule, made a king on earth; in the image of His omnipotence - an autocratic king; in the image of His immortal kingdom, lasting from century to century, - the hereditary king" (Metropolitan Philaret Moscow). Through dynastic succession, the people appear in history as a trinity of people who have gone into eternity, who live on earth and have not yet come to it. A dynasty is one and the same monarch, changing names and appearances only because man is mortal on earth. Lev Tikhomirov wrote: “Through the dynasty, the sole bearer of the supreme truth becomes, as it were, immortal, eternally living with the nation. The sovereign simultaneously possesses all the power of this ideal, and he himself is completely subordinate to him "(" Monarchical statehood ")
An oath to the Tsar is not an oath personally to Ivan, Alexy, Nicholas, George, etc. - this is an oath to Rod. The tsar is exactly one (hence the "monarchy"), the tsar's son is himself. Monarchy is noumenal, not phenomenal. When there is no family, there are no dead people and their expected future, there can be no monarchy.
At the same time, for the Orthodox Kingdom, the Third Rome, the Tsar (Emperor) is 1) “the bishop of the external affairs of the Church”, her guardian from heresies and schisms, as the only White (free) Tsar in the world who has the right to convene Ecumenical Councils. 2) Supreme Legislator, Ruler and Judge. In a secular aspect, this is even broader.
Power by its nature is one and monadic: it either exists or it does not. Aristotle was the first to formulate this, creating the doctrine of three "correct" types of power - monarchy, aristocracy and polity (democracy) - and three distorted ones - tyranny, oligarchy and democracy (ochlocracy). It is correct to speak not about "form", but about "type of government". "Separation of powers" is one of the main components of "the great lie of our time." L.A. Tikhomirov in "Monarchical Statehood" speaks about the unity and indivisibility of the Supreme Power and about the fundamental diversity of "governing powers" of both national and local significance.
On the other hand, socialism, already mentioned above, is initially dual. In fact, we can talk about "two socialisms". We are not interested in speculative "enlightenment" (in particular, Marxist), not in the Manichean "thirst for death", explored in the already mentioned book by Academician I.R.Shafarevich, but in Russian indigenous, root socialism, the origins of which are in and estate (social) - representative state XV-XVII with a legally unlimited Monarchy, deliberative "Councils of the whole earth" (Zemsky Sobor) and broad local government, Russian socialism - civilizational, not formational - and there is - Autocratic monarchy.
The Muscovy was the so-called. "draft state" (in the words of V.O.Klyuchevsky), or "fortress state", and the word "fortress" denoted, first of all, the collective responsibility of the whole people - exactly the same as it was within the peasant community. Appanage princes, boyars, and then nobles served the Sovereign, shed their blood, and on these conditions the peasants gradually attached themselves to the land, fed and armed those who defended the peasants themselves in the war. All Moscow people were "sovereign people", there was no personal dependence between them, just as there was no "baptized property", which appeared only after the Decree of 1762 on "noble liberty", which instantly turned the "fortress" into "serfdom" (this is ugly imitation of European feudalism led to the equally ugly "Russian capitalism" of the late 19th and early 20th centuries).
The Moscow state as a "draft" state was to the same extent a state-estate-representative state: Zemsky sobors as consultative bodies under the Supreme Power, convened on the estate-land (today we would say "socio-territorial") basis, were a living and organic form. ties of power with the "land", which, no doubt, would have developed into a political form fully alternative to Western parliamentarism with its principles of formal majority and dictatorship of parties, if its development had not been interrupted by the church schism of the 17th century (after which the Councils themselves ceased to be convened ), and then - by the Decree of 1762. The slogan "Tsar and Soviets" put forward in the 30s of the twentieth century by the "Young Russians" A.L. Kazem-bek (1902 - 1977) was absolutely consistent and organic
Here we begin to talk no longer about the past (conventionally), but about the present and the future.
Of course, if we consider modern Russia as being in a transitional period (a republic in form, but in fact a classic "Roman principate" with a testamentary transfer of power in terms of content), then changes in the state structure should be carried out non-violently, peacefully and within the framework of the mechanisms provided for the current Constitution, and it is desirable to initiate them by the Head of State himself.
Let us remind you once again: the USSR? originally conceived as a left-globalist project of transition to a world government under the usurped "red shell", after the "counter-revolution of 1937-38. year began to acquire some (far from all) features of historical, even pre-Petersburg Russia as a "draft state", although without a Tsar and formally outside Orthodoxy. And after the recurrent bourgeois revolution of 1991 (the continuation of the February revolution), it turned out that the historical Russian monarchy and historical Russian socialism have one and the same enemy - the forces of antichrist, that is, the same "world governments" and capital. This is what opened - unexpectedly for many - a common future, the path of a single political praxis for the supporters of the Russian Orthodox monarchy and Russian socialism, that is, just "all Russia".
It turns out that it is Moscow Russia that is the era of the highest Russian "self-similarity", our "self" (AF Losev). In the XV-middle of the XVII centuries. a state system was formed, which still remains a hidden "matrix" of Russian statehood. The state structure of the Muscovite Kingdom was, is and will remain "matrix" for Russia, although it inevitably attracts "signs and leaders" (M. Voloshin) Its final "emergence" is inevitable.
The split of the middle of the 17th century. divided the people into two parts, predetermined the further implantation of European forms (including, after 1762, pseudo-feudal serfdom). Ultimately, the "rejection of Moscow" and led already in Soviet times to the new appearance of "the deified and deadened universal serf state, organizationally very close to the experience of ancient Moscow, only with the opposite spiritual sign" (P.B. Struve), including both "Zemshchina" (Soviets) and "oprichnina" (party). In the 70s and 80s of the XX century, the position of the General Secretary was not enshrined in legislation in the same way as the Moscow Tsar, and the ratio of the CPSU and the Soviets reproduced the "oprichnaya" model.
The discarding of the communist "shell", unfortunately, led not to the revival of organic life (it was almost killed in the 1920s), but to a new "Euro-American reception" and, as a consequence, to crumbling statehood, capable of being held only by police order. and also to the discrepancy between "law" and "concepts". And the only viable one today is the possibility of "returning the old Moscow", of course, taking into account all realities and new technologies. In particular, the political ideas of Leontiev, Tikhomirov, Kazem-bek must be studied anew.
The social nature of the monarchical state primarily lies in the fact that not political (i.e., divided by ideologies) parties, but social strata (formerly they were called estates), professional associations, labor collectives, as well as territorial entities (lands) are involved in legislative activity ... "To the supreme power - unlimited power of government - to the earth - unlimited power of opinion" (still a Slavophil formula)
The supreme power is not legally limited. However, the Tsar is a "son of the church", brings repentance and accepts church sacraments. The Church itself returns to strict canonical practice, to the Pilots. However, there should be no compulsion to believe in the future Kingdom. Orthodox Christianity (old, Russian, and new, Greco-Russian, rite) is not a state, but a state-forming confession. No "certificates of confession" and everything that ruined the old "symphony". Clericalism, that is, the desire of the clergy to lead the state, should also be ruled out. People turn to faith by looking at the Tsar, Tsarina and their children. The supreme power also protects Islam, Buddhism and other traditional religions of the indigenous peoples of Russia, local customs. The practice of the "secular state" retains free religious education at the request of the family, the absence of a "religious search" when applying for a job, and non-interference in private life. However, propaganda of atheism, public blasphemy and blasphemy are not allowed.
Court - Royal (princely) law. The court is adversarial, but no accusation should come from the State. The tsar and the judges appointed by him are the arbiters of both the prosecution and the defense. The imputation of the accusation to the Prosecutor's Office (that is, the deliberate placing of the State in an accusatory position) is a huge and difficult-to-correct mistake of the judicial reform of 1864, inherited in the future. The prosecutor's office (which retains oversight of the observance of laws and the fight against corruption) should be relieved of the function of state prosecution. The prosecution and defense are carried out within the framework of one class (labor association) of lawyers within the framework of the performance of professional duties. Professional judges are appointed by the Supreme Authority, on whose behalf the verdict is announced and which is the highest court of appeal.
Legislation is the business of the Supreme Power itself. The highest representative bodies do not pass laws, but discuss and prepare them. Only the law approved by the Emperor comes into force. Governing powers can be delegated to the prime minister, chancellor, dictator, etc. (according to the situation and conditions) and then distributed among branches and industries. Representative bodies, like the "Soviets of the Whole Earth" (Zemsky Sobors) of old Moscow, are called upon to convey to the Supreme Power the thoughts, the will and aspirations of the people from all over vast Russia. This is their main task. In this sense, the "instructions to the deputies" with the right to recall them in the USSR were much closer to life than today's "independence", but in fact it is just dependence on financial and political clans. Vitaly Tretyakov's proposal to begin the formation of new (more mobile and not privileged) estates - peasant, worker, medical, military, scientific, private, etc. - seems very fruitful, and to move on to transferring representative functions to them (and not to parties) now.
The "federal structure" of the state must remain in the past. No "sovereignties" other than the Sovereign. Governors or governors-general appointed by the Supreme Power exercise local political leadership. But - with the true diversity and "blooming complexity" of local life and structure. Any form local government- zemstvos, councils, a Cossack circle, church communities, kurultai are acceptable. The population itself chooses the form of self-government and its heads, establishes local taxes and fees, determines the forms of ownership and management. The governors do not interfere with this. Their main task is to ensure the unity and integrity of the country, the functioning of objects of strategic and national importance, transport and communications. Moreover, the formation of political subjects on a national basis is excluded. But - with full cultural-ethnic and ethnic-religious autonomy, freedom of use and development of local languages and dialects.
Social-monarchism puts forward two basic principles of the life of the state - Autocracy and self-government. This is the name of the article by Sergei Fedorovich Sharapov (1855-1911), published in 1899, who proposed separating the »A number of zemstvo units (regions) self-governing on the basis of the law given by the Monarch. Thus, "a number of living social self-governing zemstvo organisms" arise. People from the zemstvo environment are being promoted to the top. In this way, it is possible to create a numerous and truly "better" social class. " At the same time, the Zemsky Sobor (Council of the Whole Land) is not a one-time meeting that determines (not “elects”!) The future Tsar and the Dynasty, but “a constantly convened nationwide meeting, necessary in special situations, the unity of state-national forces ... -public meeting ".
Social-monarchism is fundamentally not "fixated" on the economy. Somewhere it is better to do this, and somewhere else. Many circumstances matter - the size of the territory, climate, nature, religion, culture, geostrategic position, what is called "local development". Except one. The basis of local development is land. It is no coincidence that "land" is a synonym for "volost", and "volost" also means power. Land, like power, is indivisible. This is the same "Tsar-people" relationship. Hence the impossibility and inadmissibility of private ownership of land. "The land of God and the Sovereign, and so - no one." "On the Day of Spirits, the earth is a birthday girl." "Mother Earth ..." The land can be given only for possession, for temporary use, for the sake of its cultivation, but not in property with the right to sell, although everything that in legal language is called "fruits, products and incomes" can be located both in collectively and privately owned by peasants (Christians). Land can also be inherited - but without the right to sell it. By the way, it is inherited in the same way, but the royal power cannot be sold either; in this sense, the Tsar is the same "peasant", that is, a Christian.
Capitalism is just as evil as the sale of land - it is not at all synonymous with private property (contrary to Marxism). Capitalism is precisely banking capital, "hundredths" (percent), that is, making money out of nothing. The ecclesiastical canon prescribes excommunication from the Church for this. Even if today we are forced to deal with banks and interest, we must clearly realize that this is a direct sin with all the ensuing consequences for both bankers and clients. According to the Helmsmen, receiving (and giving) money under the hundredths is a sin, for which excommunication is due. There is complete solidarity with Islam on this issue. That a highly developed interest-free economy is possible is evidenced by modern Iran. And we will come to this - even if not in one hour.
In principle, the following can be considered the optimal economic structure of the future monarchy: the land, its bowels, forests, water resources, as well as the continental shelf are in the exclusive possession of the state ("Earth is God and the sovereign"), but can be given into the possession and use of subjects of the Empire and their corporate associations. All heavy, strategic, defense, aviation, nuclear, space industries and high technologies (including nanotechnology) also belong exclusively to the state. Civil maritime, civil aviation and rail transport can operate on a mixed public-private basis, as they do today. Education - state, but taking into account local cultural, religious and ethnic characteristics (on a voluntary basis). Approximately the same should apply to medicine, with high earnings of workers, but private clinics, apparently, can exist. In agriculture, fishing, trades, etc. all forms of ownership and production can exist: from state to farm. Sphere of light and food industry, different kinds services are best if they are private.
All financial activity (ideally, interest-free), of course, should be in the hands of the state and carried out on behalf of the Emperor - according to the principle of "Caesar's denarius". Industrial, Peasant, Cooperative, Land, Gorny, Lesnoy, Stroitelny, Bank of a Young Family and other banks must be branches of the State Bank, although they have more freedom. Private financial activities and, moreover, uncontrolled admission of foreign and international financial structures cannot be admitted.
In the public sector, of course, one will have to recall the Soviet organizational and technical experience - of course, minus the petty bureaucratic regulation and "party control".
Apparently, such a primordially Russian type of entrepreneurship and labor as an artel (including in the form of a full and limited partnership) will have to return to life.
The state will definitely have to take under direct tutelage fundamental, including theoretical, science as the basis for any industrial and technological development. The lack of a quick "commercial exit" shouldn't be an obstacle here. Ideally, science is under the personal tutelage of the Sovereign, and culture - the Empress.
The monarchical state is a state of social cooperation. Representatives of the administration and workers should be represented on an equal footing in the governing economic bodies of state enterprises, in mixed and private - entrepreneurs and workers. The same applies to sectoral trade unions (syndicates) that have their representation in national legislative bodies (of the type Zemsky Cathedrals). In this regard, the experience of Spain in the 40s – 50s of the last century with its "Labor Charter" is very interesting. In general, the experience of syndicalism can be very useful.
Social-monarchism considers law as an objective, God-given reality, necessary for the life of the state and the people. However, the right is not valuable in itself. Modern jurisprudence, elevating law to an "absolute value", thereby at best "reflects" the question of its origin, at worst - turns law into an idol. “New paganism” is not Russian Rodnoverie, “new paganism” is the cult of law as an idol to which sacrifices are made, “humanitarian bombing”. Perhaps, and on May 2 in Odessa - also a victim to the idol of "human rights".
The ancient Aryans talked about the "company" - the world law, which has a rotational (around the World tree) nature, manifested in the change of seasons and the labor practice of human communities. Orthodox Christianity, without denying such an understanding, sees in law the action of the Holy Spirit, the true and life-giving, who is like that everywhere and fulfill everything. The actions of the Holy Spirit are manifold and personal. Therefore, there is not and cannot be any "single right". Right - "rule" - that is, that with the help of which they rule, is determined by citizenship to the Tsar, religious loyalty, belonging to the people and ethnic group, social (class) belonging, age, marital status, profession and professional training. There can be no "equal access" to nuclear reactor a physicist and an artist, to the operating table - a surgeon and a nurse ... Professionally managing the state and judging it can only be the one who knows all its "entrances and outcomes", including state secrets. “Human rights” is an absolute abstraction. The right is vital and concrete.
Fundamental is the concept of "legal obligation", introduced by the Russian jurist N.N. Alekseev (1879-1964) who deciphers: “This is an organic combination of rights and obligations in multilateral relations<…>Legal obligations on one side may correspond to unilateral positive obligations on the other. An ideal case of such a relationship could be that unlimited monarch who would consider his power not as a right, but also as a duty towards his subjects, as a service to them.<…>On the one hand, legal obligations correspond to legal obligations on the other. ”Such a“ social ideal ”“ could be realized if the leading stratum of the state were imbued with the idea that its power is not a right, but an obligation; and if at the same time the ruled would not be simple objects of power, would not be only bearers of duties, positive and negative, but also bearers of powers ... In such a state, truly freedom would be ideally combined with obedience ... as the freedom of organic belonging to the whole. "
Strictly speaking, every right is also a duty. The right to hold a public office should imply the obligation to undergo a corresponding moral (including military service) and vocational training... Why are such requirements (except for the army) imposed on doctors, but not imposed on officials? The right to participate in representative activities is associated with those whom a person represents (fellow countrymen, colleagues in the profession, etc.). "Orders to voters" (in Soviet times, by the way, they were) are mandatory - with the right to recall. All this applies to the so-called. "Fundamental rights and freedoms." The right to life - from the moment of conception, which implies the prohibition of abortion. The right to work is also the obligation to work, of course, given the unconditional variety of forms of work, freedom of speech presupposes knowledge of what you are talking about. ... But for the same reasons, creative freedom cannot be arbitrarily limited: what right does an official have to get involved, for example, in questions of theoretical physics or poetry ...
It is possible that there are two "levels of law" - national (imperial) and local, including local customary and religious - Sharia, shamanic law of the peoples of the North, etc., as it was in the Russian Empire. Of course, local law can only be used within local and ethnic communities, and with other participants in the legal relationship, imperial law is applied. It is also possible the existence of estate law - broader than the current corporate law. This is how a single legal space and law are correlated as a “measure of freedom” in its diversity. Thus, the law gets rid of its alienated character and begins to live a living life ...
And the guarantor of legal obligations is the Supreme Power standing above all social strata.
Thus - if we have in mind only a very brief outline - social-monarchism (let, as Father Vsevolod said, "the unification of monarchy and socialism) is more likely" the sum of Russian history "than a strict ideology. This is not "given", but "given." The future Russian monarchy, if it is restored, will not mechanically reproduce either the Moscow, Petersburg, or "Stalinist" model, but rather awaken all this together in deep memory. And not only this, but also the entire ancestral memory of the entire ancestral home. This is "New Russia, strong, according to the old model" (right. John of Kronstadt). Our City of Kitezh
The news agency "News of the Federation" published a comment by the director of the Chancellery of the House of Romanov on the speech of Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin on the compatibility of monarchy and socialism
Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin, head of the Synodal Department for Relations between Church and Society, believes that a political system that would “unite monarchy and socialism” would be most suitable for Russia. combined elements of a rigid centralized government and a welfare state.
"Sovereignty, justice and solidarity are three values on the basis of which we need to build a system that would unite monarchy and socialism," the priest said.
It is obvious to him that the people have sympathy for both the ideals of socialism and the ideals of the monarchy. "And in this context, we must defend our right to have a strong central government and have a welfare state, oriented not only to the needs of the common man, but to his opinion, a conciliar voice, a collective mind," said a representative of the Church.
In his opinion, the people and the authorities in Russia "have always felt themselves to be something united." "The opposition of the people and the authorities is an idea imposed on us, alien to us. But this unity of the people and the authorities is unthinkable without faith, which is why the value of faith is central," the priest is convinced.
“How would you comment on this idea? Is it possible to "unite monarchy and socialism" in our time? " - with such questions the correspondent of Regions.Ru turned to a number of experts.
Alexander Zakatov
Cand. ist. Sci., Director of the Chancellery of the House of Romanov:
There is nothing unusual in such a formulation of the question. Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin expressed an idea that is consonant with the provisions of the Fundamentals of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church, which speaks of both the moral advantages of the monarchy and the social duty of the state.
Of course, we are not talking about political party socialism based on materialism and class struggle, but about the social orientation of the entire state system, its focus on protecting the rights and interests of citizens. The monarchy, which organizes the nation in the image of the family, is able to most effectively combine religious and moral ideals with the pressing social and economic needs of the people.
Unfortunately, many years of propaganda instilled in the minds of society the idea that monarchy is something archaic, incompatible with modern socio-political needs. This is not true. Even before the revolution, when there were indeed many remnants of previous eras in the life of the state, the Russian monarchy followed the path of major transformations, expanding the social protection of workers (working hours, insurance, pensions, medical care, education for children).
Of course, that time cannot be idealized. There were many problems. But they existed not only in Russia, but in other countries too. In the USA, Great Britain, France, Germany, the working day was longer than in Russia. For example, US President William Howard Taft publicly recognized the working legislation of the Russian Empire under Nicholas II as the most progressive at that time in the world.
Fully the idea of combining the monarchy and best features the socialist system was expressed by the first head of the House of Romanov in exile, Tsar Kirill Vladimirovich. He could not come to terms with the atheism and mass terror of the communist regime, but he believed that there was a lot of reason in the Soviet social system. Kirill Vladimirovich was convinced that the state is obliged to guarantee justice and a decent standard of living for all citizens.
The Emperor Cyril formulated his attitude to the post-revolutionary changes as follows: "There is no need to destroy any institutions caused by life, but it is necessary to turn away only from those of them that defile the soul." Kirill Vladimirovich believed, for example, that in the event of the restoration of the monarchy, along with the restoration of private peasant land ownership, it is necessary to preserve collective farms. He was a supporter of the nationalization of mineral resources as a national property. Approved the slogan "Tsar and Soviets", which assumed a synthesis of the legitimate monarchy and the Soviet system of elected people's self-government.
The current head of the House of Romanov, Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, just like her grandfather Kirill Vladimirovich, is convinced that traditional values and institutions should serve current social goals, and social goals, in turn, cannot be achieved without relying on centuries of historical experience. ...
But now and in the foreseeable future there are no prerequisites for the restoration of the monarchy. The current state our society and today's international situation corresponds to a strong presidential republic. But in the long term, we may well think and talk about a more harmonious and durable state system, which will combine the values of a thousand-year hereditary monarchy and the new social needs of the Russian people.
Http://regions.ru/news/2548539/
APPLICATION:
From the Declaration of the Emperor in Exile, Kirill Vladimirovich, on the principles of the reforms he planned in the event of the restoration of the renewed people's autocratic monarchy in Russia. Saint-Briac, 13/26 January 1928
(...) I, the Bearer of the title of the Emperor of All Russia, belonging to me by right of succession to the throne, in accordance with my Manifesto of August 31, 1924 [ode], considered it good to declare to the Russian People the foundations on which, in my opinion, the Empire should be restored Russian.
I repeat that, as before, I reject any attempt by the unauthorized restorers of Russia to rely on the help of foreign armed intervention in the fate of our Motherland.
No matter how high the rank of the leaders of the emigration, and no matter how great their merits in the past before the Throne and the Fatherland, all their real activity in a foreign land is treason to Me and Russia, a violation of duty and the oath of a loyal subject.
May the Russian people turn their backs on them, hoping for a lasting pacification of the Motherland under the shadow of the Legitimate Hereditary Tsar.
Only by God's Grace, the Lawful Tsar, responsible only before God, independent of human arbitrariness and based on broad popular strata, can really be the defender of the just interests of the entire population in equal measure and put an end to the destructive manifestations of the class struggle, indicating to everyone his place and significance in the Russian State ...
I know that a handful of renegades who have come to power by deceit and exist by shameless lies are intimidating you with the return of the Sovereign Master of the Russian Land. You are told that the Tsar brings executions and punishments to the Russian people for turmoil, the deprivation of land from the peasants, the restoration of estates and the enslavement of the working people into a new slavery.
All this is a lie of the Communists and their servants, calculated on the fact that the real truth about My intentions in an atmosphere of suppression of every free word will not reach the heart of the people.
I have repeatedly spoken out against punishment and revenge for the crimes into which the Russian people were plunged by the rule of the communists. The sins of the tempted - we will bring to God's judgment. Let the answer be given only by the one who, with full consciousness, destroyed the sacred foundations of Russia.
Likewise, I do not intend to destroy the institutions of the people, caused by life, and begin to break the existing way of working life. It is necessary to turn away only from those institutions that defile the human soul, instilling unbelief, destroying family and moral foundations and replacing national statehood with a communist international.
At the heart of the transformations that should streamline Russian life, I have laid the following guiding principle:
The entire population of Russia will be ensured a real participation in the arrangement of state life.
The indispensable and constant participation of people's representatives in the legislation and administration of the Empire is considered by me as the cornerstone of the new monarchical Russia.
Therefore, without rejecting the Soviet system of popular representation, I will ensure the free election to the councils of representatives of all economic and productive strata of the population, as well as members of professional organizations and specialists who have been promoted by their knowledge and experience in state affairs.
Councils of rural, volost, uyezd, provincial and regional or national, crowned with periodically convened All-Russian Congresses of Soviets - this is what can bring the Russian Tsar closer to the people and make it impossible for any mediastinum in the form of an omnipotent bureaucracy or another class that enjoys special advantages.
The Russian Empire will be built on the basis of broad regional self-government, and there should be no room for the oppression of other nationalities by the Russian majority. Local government officials and court officials should be native to the area, or be sufficiently familiar with local conditions from their previous activities.
Private land, which the peasants took possession of during the revolution, will remain in their possession. No land ransom will be established. But the new owners will be entrusted with a sacred duty to cultivate the land they have received with the zeal of a good owner, so that the interests of the state would not suffer damage from this radical transformation of our land structure. Land management activities of local authorities, with the participation of representatives of the population, will have to find out the size of peasant holdings and provide new owners with legal documents.
Land ownership is subject to free alienation on legal grounds, but preemptive right the purchase of land, at its actual value, will belong to the state and communities.
I will provide all-round support to representatives of other strata of the population: city dwellers, the military, civil servants and workers, who are ready to give their strength and ability to increase the productivity of our agriculture, in acquiring, on preferential terms, unused land areas suitable for cultivation.
The Imperial Government will work out a number of effective measures to facilitate a broad transition of landowners to cultivating the land with machines, supplying them with livestock and good-quality seeds, and generally improving the cultivation of the land. In view of the radical destruction of our agriculture, the implementation of these measures will require a certain gradualness.
The eight-hour factory working day should be the standard of work that will keep workers from being abused by employers. At the same time, no one should be prohibited from increasing their well-being by unnecessary work and beyond this norm.
The Imperial Government will be careful to ensure that the newly emerging small commercial and industrial capital does not harm the interests of the working people. The Imperial Government will have special care about labor protection for women and minors.
I will do my best to promote the development of a healthy professional movement, the creation of sickness and insurance funds for workers and to overcome disagreements between entrepreneurs and workers with the participation of state arbitration courts. But, at the same time, all measures will be taken to protect the working people from the harassment of the unauthorized leaders of the labor movement to impose their will in the organization of working life. The workers will see for themselves that in alliance with the state power they will achieve much more than in the struggle against it under the leadership of the party leaders, who in all countries raped the will of the working people immeasurably more than the state.
The imperial government uses every opportunity for development, with the assistance of industry and home ownership, urban housing and improvement of housing conditions throughout the Empire.
Industrial and commercial enterprises will be converted into private property in all cases when this does not violate the state interests or the interests of cooperation organized on a sound basis.
Wide freedom of trade and private initiative will also be restored.
I will retain the right of the supreme property of the State to all subsoil and large forestry in the territory of the Empire. In the same way, oil-bearing lands will remain in the possession of the state. These measures will make it possible not to burden the population with excessive taxes.
All those who suffered property from the above measures or who lost their ability to work when Soviet power will be gradually rewarded in the order of state support and to the extent that the funds of the State Treasury allow it.
The Orthodox Church - this stone of faith on which the existence of Russian statehood is based - will receive a canonical structure in the Empire. At the same time, no one should be prohibited from glorifying the One God in another confession of faith.
Another foundation of our statehood should be a family built on the principles of religious morality. The special care of the state will be entrusted to the protection of mothers, infants, homeless and orphans - innocent victims of the disastrous experience of the communists.
I promise that all capable and business people, regardless of origin, will have equal access to government positions in the reborn Empire. I will return to the Russian people a speedy, fair and merciful judgment on the basis of the judicial reforms of my great Grandfather Emperor Alexander II.
Among other measures, which, first of all, should ensure the peaceful development of the Empire and heal the deep wounds of the turmoil, I include:
Broad popular education and planting vocational education.
Merciless eradication of hooliganism and idleness.
Reducing indirect taxation and taxes on small crafts and trades.
Appropriate freedom of the press and public life.
Reducing the cost of railway and postal tariffs.
Possibly wide medical assistance all those suffering from serious illnesses, which became so widespread during the years of communist rule.
This is the path along which I intend to return the Russian people to peaceful work, contentment and order and to restore our Motherland in the meaning of the bearer of peace among other peoples.
I call on all Russian people to be imbued with the firmness of my aspirations to see the entire population of the All-Russian Empire free, peaceful and prosperous. Everyone should remember that only selfless work and the united efforts of the Russian people will help me in the speediest implementation of my intentions.
Almighty God is with us, Who will support us in the fight against those who blaspheme His Name.
I believe in His advancing mercy and in the close return to the fulfillment of my Royal duty.
/ on the original, signed by His Imperial Majesty's own hand /
Reviews
Thanks! That's where the wind of Chaplin's anathema blows! It is strange, you can always argue on any issue, but here the strangeness is already in political nakedness, clinging to the moral upbringing of the emotions of the people. And then a completely different point of view on the arguments of Archpriest Chaplin came to my mind: "I. V. Kireevsky is a philosopher, publicist, one of the first representatives of Slavophilism in Russian culture. He saw the source of the crisis of European enlightenment in the departure from religious principles and the loss of spiritual integrity He believed that Western rationalism should be opposed by a Russian worldview based on feeling and faith.
The dominant place in Kireevsky is occupied by the idea of the integrity of spiritual life. It is "whole thinking" that allows the individual and society to avoid the false choice between ignorance, which leads to "deviation of the mind and heart from true beliefs," and logical thinking, which can distract a person from everything important in the world. "
"... We have Hope and Thought about the great purpose of our fatherland!"
Kireevsky linked the birth of new thinking not with the construction of systems, but with a general turn in public consciousness, the "education of society." "All false conclusions of rational thinking depend only on its claim to a higher and complete knowledge of truth."
But the truth with Chaplin's opinion is not visible. Moreover, he also threatens anathema to the Russian people. Something I generally ceased to understand in people. Such a great mind is proto-Heavenly, and thinking with reasoning does not logically fit into the canvas of rationality and relevance.
So what is the essence of his threats?
Some will disagree with this statement; others are shocked, but pay attention to interesting fact- Today Leontyev's works are popular not only among Orthodox monarchists, but also among Stalinists.
When in the 1990s the active republishing of the works of Konstantin Nikolaevich began, this led to a new consideration of the topic "conservatism-socialism". Philologist S.G. Bocharov, referring to the idea of an alliance of socialism with the Russian autocracy, proposed by Leontyev, wrote: "history has not carried out such a bizarre combination and, hopefully, will not carry it out ...". Philosopher G.D. Gachev believed that Leont'ev "... the eastern despot Stalin (with his peculiar ... aesthetics ...) could be quite aesthetically acceptable." The publicist N. Leontyev categorically declared: “I don’t know whether the extensive library of the leader contained the works of Konstantin Leontyev, whether he knew them or he himself came to the truth ... but, without a doubt, I.V. Stalin brought to life much of what this ... Russian thinker wrote about long before the start of our revolution, ”and MP Lobanov noticed in the "Stalinist mystery" a certain "temptation ... in the spirit of K. Leontiev."
And, nevertheless, some modern researchers who have turned to Leontiev's forecasts about a possible alliance of "socialism with the Russian autocracy" cannot but be surprised at the perspicacity of the thinker who died in 1891, when, it would seem, nothing threatened the prosperous existence of autocratic Russia. By that time, Leontyev's works had already been presented Alexander III, but he was not at all deluded about the future: “now, when ... you live in this reaction and see all the same how shallow and indecisive it is, you will involuntarily doubt and say to yourself:“ just that? ”.
Konstantin Leont'ev predicted that "the enslavement of starving labor to multi-power capital" will inevitably lead Europe (and possibly Russia) to a socialist revolution, and since any society needs some kind of heterogeneity, then "communism, in its violent aspirations for the ideal of immovable equality, should be close various combinations with other principles lead gradually, on the one hand, to less mobility of capital and property, on the other, to new legal inequality, to new privileges, to constraints on personal freedom and forced corporate groups, sharply outlined laws; probably even to new forms of personal slavery or enslavement (at least indirect, otherwise named). "
Leontyev was very interested in the reasoning of Lev Tikhomirov, a former populist who became a monarchist. In his work "Social Mirages of Modernity" he argued that in the event of the practical implementation of the socialist doctrine, the new society will be built not on the principles of freedom and equality, as promised by the socialists, but on the most severe suppression of the individual in the name of the state.
Tikhomirov predicted that punitive bodies would occupy an important place in a socialist society, which would monitor the execution of the prescribed rules and severely punish violators.
He also envisioned the development of a bureaucratic apparatus in which leaders and propagandists would occupy a prominent place: “The power of the new state over the individual will, of necessity, be enormous. A new system is being established (if this happens) through an iron class dictatorship. " Tikhomirov's reflections on the establishment of a new hierarchy and iron discipline under socialism were in line with the forecasts of Leontiev himself. The latter, to the great surprise of the author of the article, noticed that if everything really is as described in the article, then communism will be useful, since it will restore the lost justice in society.
“In Leont'ev,” Tikhomirov noted, “a serious philosophical social thought, connected with those general laws of development and decline of human societies, began to stir on this topic ... will turn out to be historically not negative, but positive. " In this regard, the opinion of V.V. Rozanov, who believed that Leontiev locked himself in the "shell of his cruel conservatism" only "out of despair", "hiding, like a great esthete, from the stream of philistine ideas and philistine factors of time and the impending future. And, consequently, if something was shown to his (Leontyev's) knightly heart in the distance and not conservative, even radical - and at the same time, however, not philistine, not flat, not vulgar, then he would rush to him from with all my strength - let me say - a genius. "
Thanking Tikhomirov for “Social Mirages of Modernity”, Leontyev noted: “I have a certain special view of communism and socialism, which can be formulated in two ways: first, liberalism is a revolution (confusion, assimilation); socialism is a despotic organization (of the future); and otherwise: the implementation of socialism in life will be an expression of the need to suspend the excessive mobility of life (from 89 in the 18th century). Compare some places in my books with those places in your last article, where you talk about the inevitability of inequality in new organization labor - and you will understand the main point of our contact. I thought about this for a long time and began writing more than once, but, fearing my ignorance in this area, every time I left the work unfinished. I have a hypothesis, or at least a rather daring suspicion; you have incomparably more familiarity with the details of the cases. And so the thought comes to me to offer you some kind of cooperation, even to subscribe to both and share the fee ... If this work turned out to be, from the point of view of "opportunism", inconvenient for printing, then I would be satisfied with the fact that our thoughts were clear set out in the manuscript. " Thus, Tikhomirov received an offer from Leontyev to write a joint work on socialism, but these intentions were not destined to come true.
Warning about the inevitable transformation of socialism on Russian soil, Leont'ev wrote: “What is now an extreme revolution will then become a protection, an instrument of strict coercion, discipline, partly even slavery ... Socialism is the feudalism of the future ... in essence, liberalism is undoubtedly destruction, and socialism can become a creation. " He assumed that at first the most widespread would be the destructive slogans - “first anarchy, organization - later; it will come of its own accord, ”but he had no doubt that the Russian socialists would become consistent statesmen.
At the head of the future socialist state, Leontyev saw a leader who would be able to restore the lost discipline.
He believed that "socialist feudalism" would be created with the subordination of individual individuals to small and large organizations ("communities"), and the "communities" themselves - to the state. It was even assumed the possibility of "enslavement" of individuals in the form of their "attachment" to various institutions or other persons standing high on the career ladder.
As an antipode to this despotic society, Leontyev saw a kind of "all-America", a generalized cosmopolitan symbol. “When I think about the future of Russia, I make it an indispensable condition for the appearance of just such thinkers and leaders who will be able to apply that kind of hatred to this all-America, with which I am now almost lonely and in the depths of my heart I am powerlessly burning! My feeling prophesies to me that the Slavic Orthodox tsar will one day take the socialist movement into his hands (just as Constantine of Byzantium took the religious movement into his hands) and, with the blessing of the Church, will establish a socialist form of life in the place of the bourgeois-liberal one. And this socialism will be a new and harsh threefold slavery: to the communities, the Church and the Tsar. And this whole America ... to hell! ".
Leontyev rejected the possibility of a disinterested union between Russia and the West. In one of the letters to the priest I.I. Fudel, he even suggested that, perhaps 50 years later, the West, having united into "one liberal and nihilistic republic" and putting a brilliant leader at the head of this republic, will begin a campaign against Russia. And then this united republic will be "terrible in its impulse." She will be able to dictate the terms of Russia, threatening her independence: "Give up your dynasty, or leave no stone unturned and devastate the whole country." And then either “we will merge with the charming utilitarian republic of the West”, or “if we are ourselves, then we will overturn all Asia with glory on them, even Muslim and pagan, and we will have to save the monuments of art there”.
The thinker predicted that a variant is possible when Russia will be able to “take the extreme revolutionary movement into its hands and, becoming the head of it, wipe out the bourgeois culture of Europe. .. One cannot think that it will live up to the very (until inevitable in time) until its death and death only as a political one, that is. as mechanical - force, without any ideal - influence on history. "
For all the vulnerability of historical parallels, it can be noted that Leontyev was able to predict the fate of Russia in the twentieth century more clearly than Danilevsky.
After the end of World War II, the USSR vaguely resembled the society modeled by Leontiev. J.V. Stalin was forced to give the recently persecuted Orthodox Church a certain place in state system... The people were subordinated to the communities (in the form of collective farms) and the ruling party, built on a hierarchical principle based on strict discipline. All this existed against the backdrop of the growing confrontation between the Soviet country and capitalist America. At the same time, the people who had won the hardest war against the enemy who threatened to "leave no stone unturned and devastate the whole country" felt legitimate pride in their homeland. In 1952, the poet Alexei Eisner, in his poem "Cavalry", wrote almost in Leontief's way mercilessly:
Peaks will easily pierce the sky,
Stirrups will creak slightly
And someone will move with a wild gesture
Yours, Russia, tribes ...
Again, the checkers take off again,
The trumpet rumbles through the rows
And red caps are jumping
Through ruined cities.
The wagon-cart knocks.
In the transparent Louvre, light and shout
And before Venus de Milo
The mysterious Kalmyk froze
Wake up, blissful Europe,
Shake peace from beautiful eyelids, -
More terrible than a coward and a flood
A distant Asian foray.
She will be lifted up by passion and will,
Dawn cold bugler,
Smoke of a campfire in a dewy field
And a whistling saber ...
Pray fat prelates
Madonna is pink.
Pray! - Russian soldiers
The horses are already being saddled.
Considering that the popularity of socialism is facilitated by its messianic flavor and ecumenical shade, Leontyev argued that in Russia socialism will acquire religious and sacrificial features. He was not alone in this statement. Danilevsky and Tikhomirov saw a certain pseudo-religious raid in socialism.
Danilevsky emphasized that if in the West materialistic and atheistic teachings were scientific in nature, in Russia, due to the peculiarities of the cultural-historical type, they acquired a messianic coloration, giving rise to their own martyrs for the idea, their "apostles" and "preachers."
Leontyev wrote to one of his correspondents that in the 20th and 21st centuries, socialism will play the role that Christianity once played. In the same letter, the idea was expressed that “socialism does not mean atheism yet”, and for the socialist doctrine there can be found his own Constantine, his preacher, who, through “blood and peaceful reforms”, will create a new society. Otherwise, humanity will merge into a single rationalistic civilization.
Leont'ev had no doubt that “socialism (that is, a deep and partly violent economic ... revolution) is now apparently inevitable ... The life of these new people should be much harder, more painful than the life of good, conscientious monks in strict monasteries. (for example, on Athos), And this life is very difficult for someone who is familiar with it ... But the Athos cinoviatus has one firm and clear consoling thought, there is a saving thread ... afterlife bliss. Whether this thought will be comforting for the people of the supposed economic hostels, we do not know. " He predicted that the establishment of the new power of the socialists in Russia would be associated with great sacrifices. He did not believe in the possibility of establishing long-term democratic rule in Russia, believing that even if the liberals triumph in Russia, the destructive energy of the masses will sweep them away. And then extreme radicals must inevitably come to power: “What do you think, Messrs. liberals, are they erecting a monument to you? No! Socialists everywhere (and especially our Mark Volokhovs and Bazarovs) despise your moderate liberalism ... And no matter how hostile these people may be against real guardians or against forms and methods of guarding, which are unfavorable to them, they themselves will need all the essential aspects of protective teachings. They will need fear, they will need discipline; they will need traditions of obedience, a habit of obedience ... Yes, of course, if the anarchist socialists triumph somewhere and sometime, they will give justice to the conservatives ... rather than to those representatives of the cautious ... denial, who are called liberals and who real name must be: legal revolutionaries ... ".
Comparison of liberalism and socialism, as ways of development of Russia, ended not in favor of the first: "Moderate liberalism for the mind is, first of all, turmoil, much more turmoil than anarchism or communism." In his work "The Average European as an Ideal and a Tool of World Destruction," Leontyev compared the actions of radical socialists to a fire, noting that a fire can bring not only harm, but also benefit. Built on the site of the burned down, the new building can be more perfect, a new one can appear on the ruins of the old one. At the same time, Leontyev made a reservation that the "arsonists" should be severely punished, not glorified, and called for stricter punishment of "incautious arsonists" (liberals) who do more harm to the state than "deliberate arsonists" (revolutionaries). Observing European events, Leontyev was looking for a path different from those suggested by liberals and anarchists: “For us, both sides are equally alien and even disgusting - both the fierce communard, burning the Tuilerian treasures, and the unbelieving guardian of capital, the republican shopkeeper, equally hostile to his Church. , and the monarch, and the people. " Therefore, for all the dislike for liberalism, you certainly cannot suspect Leontyev in sympathy for anti-state officials (today's "Orangemen"), although in the famous work of Maxim Gorky "The Life of Klim Samgin" the main character thinking about publishing his own printed organ, dreams of "writing about the spiritual relationship of Konstantin Leontyev with Mikhail Bakunin."
Leont'ev attached great importance to the presence of despotic elements in socialism, without which Russia would turn into a kind of world bourgeois republic.
“If socialism has a future not as a nihilistic rebellion and delusion of all-negation, but as a legal organization of labor and capital, as a new corporate forced enslavement of human societies, then in Russia this new order will be created, which does not harm either the Church, or the family, or the higher civilization - no one can except the Monarchical government. " The thinker fully admitted that socialism can be combined with the monarchical principle. Leontyev shocked Orthodox conservatives with such thoughts: “I will say even more: if socialism is not as a nihilistic rebellion and delusion of self-denial, but as a legal organization of labor and capital, as a new corporate forced enslavement of human societies has a future, then in Russia create ... this new order, harming neither the church, nor the family, nor the higher civilization - no one can except the monarchical government. "
Shortly before his death, in a letter to Rozanov, the thinker predicted: “The union of socialism (“ impending slavery, ”according to the liberal Spencer) with the Russian autocracy and fiery mysticism (which philosophy will serve like a dog) is still possible, but it will be terrible for many ... Otherwise, everything will be either jelly or anarchy. " 100 years after these lines were written, the USSR collapsed. 1991 was the 100th anniversary of Leontyev's death, but only a few in the then situation paid attention to the predictions of the thinker, who was able to catch both the "tremors" of the revolutionary storm and the footsteps of Joseph Stalin.
Loading...