ALEXANDER POKROVSKY Holy power brought out of trouble, Truth rescued from trouble. Life does not tolerate confused fiction, Covers false traces ... Everyone was scared by a blizzard and snowdrifts: “Today evil and lies rule the world,

Pavel Medvedev (executive director) My victory with the Forex Club Working in the company helped me develop human and professional quality that allowed me to grow up and become who I am. We have a successful symbiosis with the company: I wanted to do a lot for

The Emperor is ten thousand years old! So, in the ripe autumn of 742, leaving his children at his home in Nanling within the city of Yanzhou under the supervision of the wife of a devoted servant Tansha, Li Bo fastened his sword and, accompanied by Tansha (what kind of knight without a servant?) Set off on horseback to a distant

Epitaph to Leonidas the First and Last, Emperor of All Soviet Russia, written on the day of his funeral. Here again the wheel has turned - we cannot live as before! And the hero of the jokes is buried against a brick wall. And the longing for a comrade ... a sinner oppresses us, As if they sat in a taxi, and the bridges

In Moscow, not far from the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, a monument to Emperor Alexander II was unveiled. When covering this event, federal TV channels did not fail to report that Alexander II was a "reformer", it was during his reign that serfdom was abolished, and for this Alexander Nikolaevich Romanov was named "Tsar-Liberator" and showed a close-up of those gathered at the opening ceremony of the monument. The spectators could once again observe the touching unity of the "right-wing" patriots-"soil" and Western liberals. Monarchists with bushy beards stood shoulder to shoulder, politely sad to the anthems of tsarist Russia, and Radzinsky's televitiya, telling in his specific voice before a microphone about the "benefits" of the liberal reforms of Alexander II. It is clear that each of them had their own reason: the monarchists paid homage to Alexander II, since he is a tsar, liberals, since he is a reformer. But all the same, this unnatural union was impressive.

And of course, our very "politically correct" journalists did not hesitate to throw mud at the party "Narodnaya Volya", whose bombers killed the "Tsar-Liberator" on March 1, 1881 on the Catherine Canal in St. Petersburg. A lively journalist, commenting quickly on this tragedy of a century ago, said that some "modern historians" - he did not bother to name them - believe that "terrorists-socialists", they say, killed the "tsar-reformer" for allegedly improved the life of the people and, therefore, hindered the development of a revolutionary situation.

It is not so much outright ignorance that shocks national history our television "masters of minds" - it seems that many are already accustomed to this - how much is the very attitude towards their ideological opponents on the part of people who proudly call themselves "enlightened liberals" and "Russian Europeans." From them you will not get recognition like this: we, they say, do not share the political views of the Russian Narodnaya Volya, and even more so, we do not approve of the political practice of terror that they have chosen, but we understand that although they were mistaken in some way, they were still people honest, selfless, courageous and in their own way wished their homeland well. Indeed, in fact, the tragedy of that situation was precisely in the fact that both the tsar and the Narodnaya Volya terrorists were not pathological villains. For all his reformism, Alexander II was still not a puppet, not remembering kinship, with a team of American advisers behind his back, like the current "reformers" who declare themselves to be the successors of the "tsar-liberator" cause. And the terrorists of the late 19th century did not work for foreign funds and special services, as Russian terrorists the beginning of the 21st century. Thus, both Tsar Alexander II and his associates, and members of the Narodnaya Volya party, were nevertheless patriots of Russia, striving for the good for their homeland. They just understood this blessing in different ways; and this misunderstanding reached such a depth that dialogue between them was no longer possible: the tsar ordered the Narodniks to be thrown into prison and hanged, and the Narodniks, in turn, threw bombs into the Tsar's carriage and organized explosions in his palace.

However, this could be said by a person who may not really favor Narodnaya Volya, but at the same time honest, able to rise above the ideological foam, whatever color it may be, in the end, just loving our history, in the words of the great poet, such, what God gave it to us ... But this is not to be expected from a talker from television ... He is used to serving the authorities - at first the old, "stagnant", now the current, "liberal". Moreover, he does it extremely clumsy: creating black and white simplified schemes, demonizing and vulgarizing those who do not like the current government ... Previously, he instilled that all Russian tsars were idlers and dumb, only thinking how to rob the people, and he praised Zhelyabov and Perovskaya - now, on the contrary, he pours tubs of slop on the Narodnaya Volya and glorifies the reforming tsars.

It would seem that one should not pay attention to this, alas, a typical example for our time ... At the same time, I think, the case with the People's Will and the "Tsar-Liberator" is special, since in fact it is very relevant precisely in our days, when new "reformers" are in power, worse than the previous ones ...

So, why did the Narodnaya Volya kill the reformer tsar? On whose side was the truth: on the side of Alexander Romanov or Andrei Zhelyabov?

I don’t know what kind of "modern historians" our TV journalist found - apparently from among those who go to television shows and amaze real specialists with their surprisingly free handling of facts and figures - but it would be interesting and useful to know: how the People's Will themselves explained their an attempt on the king. After all, revolutionaries differ from politicians with the burden of power in that they can quite frankly, without looking back at political situation and on the alignment of political forces, to say: what they think and what they feel. Alexander II could not publicly express what was in his soul and mind, often, he could not publicly say even a simple truth, he obeyed decency, protocol, ceremony, the interests of the state, finally. Andrey Zhelyabov could afford such liberty. Sincerity and truth are one of the few privileges of revolutionaries, for which they pay with reproaches from society, imprisonment and life itself.

A few days after the assassination of Alexander II, on March 10, 1881, the executive committee of the People's Will drew up, discussed and approved a letter to the heir to the throne, the son of the deceased Tsar, the future Emperor Alexander III. It was printed in 13 thousand copies in an underground printing house and distributed (one copy, printed on the best paper, was mailed to the palace). There Narodnaya Volya resolutely rejected the official explanation of what had happened, which is now being "raised on the shield" by journalists who sympathize with the new government: a person who is completely incapable of analyzing the life of peoples .... "The following statement of the Narodnaya Volya also sounds quite justified:" Revolutionaries are created by circumstances, the general displeasure of the people, Russia's desire for new social forms ... ". What are these circumstances in which Russia found itself under Alexander II? Narodnaya Volya very colorfully describe the consequences of the reforms of the "tsar-liberator": "the imperial government ... has given the masses to the power of the nobility, at present it is openly creating the most harmful class of speculators and profiteers. All its reforms lead only to the fact that the people are falling into more and more slavery is more and more exploited. It has brought Russia to the point that at present the masses of the people are in a state of complete poverty and ruin ... Only the predator, the exploiter, enjoys the protection of the law and the government; the most outrageous robberies remain unpunished. "

But why do revolutionaries express their discontent through such a brutal political method as terror? Here too, the Narodnaya Volya members give a completely clear justification, which, if it does not justify them from the point of view of the eternal commandment (however, the same reproach - in violation of the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" can be turned to the opposite side), then in any case is not devoid of logic. Narodnaya Volya point out that the government itself does not allow the intelligentsia to peacefully propagandize those views that they consider to be true, openly and publicly criticize the government, pointing out to it the ulcers of public life, the corruption of officials, the plight in the countryside and in factories. Moreover, the authorities imprison and hang representatives of the intelligentsia who dared to raise their voices against the outrageousness of Russian life: “You know, your Majesty, that the government of the late emperor cannot be blamed for a lack of energy. As many as dozens of the so-called "leaders" are overfished, outweighed. But responding to criticism, proposals and propaganda with arrests, exile, executions, the authorities achieve only the opposite effect, the growth of the revolutionary movement: "What benefit did the government benefit from the death of the Dolgushins, Tchaikovites, and leaders of 1874? They were replaced by much more decisive Narodniks. Terrible government reprisals later called the terrorists of 1878-1879 onto the stage. Committee..".

Proceeding from this, the Narodnaya Volya members posed a dilemma for the tsar: "There can be only two ways out of such a situation: either a revolution, completely inevitable, which cannot be prevented by any executions, or a voluntary appeal of the supreme power to the people." And then comes the most unexpected thing: the Narodnaya Volya members resolutely spoke out ... against the revolution. "In the interests of the native land, in order to avoid unnecessary loss of strength, in order to avoid those terrible calamities that always accompany the revolution, the Executive Committee appeals to your Majesty with advice to choose the second path."

The letter ended with the formulation of the demands of the Narodnaya Volya party, the fulfillment of which by the tsar would eliminate the danger of a people's revolution. These are: "... a general political amnesty for all political crimes ..., the convocation of representatives from the entire Russian people ...". Moreover, to this supreme body of people's representation: "deputies are sent from all classes of estates indifferently and in proportion to the number of residents ... there should be no restrictions either for voters or for deputies ... the election campaign and the elections themselves must be made freely ... ".

If the tsar fulfills these conditions, the Narodnaya Volya party promised to end the terror and dissolve itself: “Believe that as soon as the supreme power ceases to be arbitrary, as soon as it firmly decides to fulfill only the demands of the people's consciousness and conscience ... will cease its activity and the forces organized around it will disperse in order to devote themselves to cultural work for the benefit of the native people. A peaceful, ideological struggle will replace violence, which is more repugnant to us than to your servants ... ".

So, according to the Narodnaya Volya themselves, the reasons for passing and enforcing the death sentence to Alexander II were as follows:

The perniciousness for the people and, above all, the peasantry, which stands for the communal life order, of those liberal reforms or those forms of "liberation" that the tsar carried out;

The reluctance of the "tsar-liberator" to listen to the people themselves and to the intelligentsia, their desire to continue to rule, based only on their own arbitrariness and rejecting the principle of democracy;

Terror deployed against the revolutionary intelligentsia by the state, which does not allow revolutionaries to use peaceful methods of propaganda and influence the opinion of the people.

The very enumeration of these reasons immediately forces us to question the canonical image of the People's Will, which has long been rooted in the Russian consciousness. It is no secret that semi-official Soviet propaganda sought to present practically all currents of the revolutionary movement in Russia as a kind of predecessors of the Bolsheviks. And although it did not hide the disagreements between the Narodniks and the Marxists, all the same, this official "genealogy of the revolution" produced a corresponding latent effect on the minds, so that the Narodnaya Volya members were unconsciously perceived by many as "Bolsheviks before the Bolsheviks." Now the post-Soviet agitprop is intensively exploiting this stereotype of ancient times, hence the stories about terror fanatics who dreamed of creating a revolutionary situation. The reality, as we see, is completely different.

First, the Narodnaya Volya were not fanatics of terror at all. They considered the terror of the opposition forced measure, a response to government terror. That is, the Narodnaya Volya members were principled opponents of terror as public policy... In this they differed from the Bolsheviks, who believed that the state as a repressive institution, if necessary, could and should resort to terror. Lenin criticized the policy of the autocracy not for terror as such, but for the fact that this terror came not from the revolutionary and proletarian, but from the capitalist-landlord and absolutist state. And this is natural, Lenin was a Marxist, a supporter of the class approach and the dictatorship of the proletariat. The Narodniks, on the contrary, were not supporters of the dictatorship of any one, albeit the most "advanced" class, but the self-government of the entire people. This stemmed from their essentially Slavophil views on the people as the only source of historical truth. Having no special sympathy for either the nobility or the clergy, the Narodniks believed, as we saw in the letter to Alexander III, that these estates should also be represented in the organ of the people's representation. If the people did not choose the path that the populist revolutionaries dreamed of, they were ready to accept this decision anyway and not oppose it, imposing the will of the minority on the majority by violence. It is clear from this letter that the People's Will would accept the monarchy as well, if it were not absolutist, but approved and, therefore, limited by the will of the people (however, not as a permanent institution, but as a transitional link to full democracy, which, in this case, was to be established in as a result of peaceful propaganda of the ideas of democracy among the peasant majority). By the way, according to the testimony of historians, such an opinion was openly expressed by N. Morozov, a member of the Executive Committee of "Narodnaya Volya".

Secondly, the Narodnaya Volya members were not at all fanatics of the political revolution and did not at all want to create a revolutionary situation at any cost. The Narodnaya Volya members were unconditional supporters of only a social revolution, that is, a revolution in public life, which would consist in the transition from capitalism, which they considered alien to us and a destructive product of Western culture, to Russian peasant socialism, communal land tenure and economic management. But the social revolution, in their opinion, did not necessarily have to be accompanied by a political revolution, that is, the violent overthrow of the state through an uprising. Of course, in the program of "Narodnaya Volya" there was an item on the uprising, but, as we see from the letter to the tsar, it was also viewed as an extreme and undesirable measure. Much more acceptable for the Narodnaya Volya was a peaceful, bloodless transition to popular representation, by the decision of the tsar himself, albeit taken under the pressure of the revolutionary intelligentsia. Obviously, this position has little in common with the teaching of revolutionary Marxism that the transition from one social formation to the other occurs according to the law of dialectics necessarily by way of political revolution. And again, this was due to the fact that the Narodniks were not at all Marxists, but left Slavophiles (their difference from the Right Slavophils consisted only in the fact that in the triad "Orthodoxy-autocracy-nationality" they focused on nationality, at the same at the time, their protest against capitalism and the apology of the Russian community were quite consonant with the criticism of the Petersburg period and the reforms of Peter Khomyakov and Kireevsky). Therefore, the Narodniks saw history not as a series of socio-economic formations, driven by the "locomotives of history" - revolutions, but as the work of the geniuses of the peoples, embodied in the activities of an active minority, the intelligentsia, selflessly serving their people.

One can only be sincerely surprised that Orthodox patriots-native speakers curse the Russian populists - the most consistent and decisive opponents of the establishment of Western-type capitalism in Russia, defenders of the special Russian path of development, albeit leftists, but nevertheless the successors of the cause of the Slavophiles, and glorify the Emperor Alexander II - another "best German" on the Russian throne, a zealous Westernizer, like all the Romanovs after Peter, his liberal reforms just imposing capitalism of the European model (albeit from the best patriotic aspirations). No less surprising is the fact that people who call themselves democrats vilify almost the first consistent and principled democrats in Russia, uncompromising supporters of popular representation and broad political freedoms, and utter praises to the autocratic ruler, who ruled the country at his own discretion, was responsible for the most severe censorship, political lawlessness of the majority of the population and police persecution of democrats ...

The correctness of the prediction of the Narodnaya Volya was proved by the very subsequent development of events. It is known how Tsar Alexander III reacted to this letter. Naturally, he did not even think about any democratic elections and amnesties for political prisoners. The People's Will were captured and sentenced to death by hanging. When the philosopher Vladimir Soloviev suggested to Alexander III to forgive the regicides in a Christian way and replace death with another punishment, the "Orthodox sovereign" replied with a phrase that rather unflatteringly characterizes the great Russian philosopher - so much so that I am ashamed to quote it here.

And then everything happened as the letter of the Narodnaya Volya predicted. State repressions intensified, the revolutionary movement, in spite of this, but rather thanks to this, grew. The Narodnaya Volya was replaced by the terrorists-Socialist-Revolutionaries, the Social Democrats carried on propaganda among the workers, the intelligentsia was completely engulfed in Cadet ideas. Terror on the part of the state, which could have an effect as an extreme and short-term measure, being turned into a permanent policy, only embittered the revolutionaries, made them stronger, hardened, more irreconcilable. At the same time, capitalist reforms, destroying the traditional Russian life order, continued, causing more and more indignation of all segments of the population, except for speculators and capitalists who profited from these reforms. S.G. Kara-Murza called Stolypin, this follower of the liberal cause of Alexander II, the true father of the Russian revolution. In a sense, the reform of 1861 was the predecessor of Stolypin's reforms. The point was not that Alexander II finally freed the peasants from serfdom. The fact is that the emancipation was arranged in such a way that it opened the way for the destruction of the peasant community, for the development of capitalism in Russia. The Narodnaya Volya members were absolutely right in saying that such reforms are beneficial only to a handful of speculators and capitalists (the irony of history: these reforms ultimately proved to be unprofitable even for tsarism itself, undermining its foundation, the village patriarchal community!).

The result of the capitalization of Russia, produced by the imperious hand of the Westernizing autocracy, turned out to be quite natural, foreseen by the Narodnaya Volya back in the 80s. 19th century. Dissatisfaction with the government gripped so broad strata of the population that the three-hundred-year-old monarchy of the Romanovs fell in February 17th in three days, with the complete indifference of its subjects.

However, let us imagine that a miracle would happen and the ideal of the populists would be realized - a peasant, socialist federal Russia with a body of broad popular representation at the head and without any firm vertical of power would be formed. Naturally, the cessation of capitalist reforms, a complete transition to communal land ownership, to peasant socialism responded to the urges of the Russian soul and would have been accomplished by the necessary correction of the dislocation inflicted on it by Westernization. However, the naive democratism of the populists, their rejection of the ideas of a strong, if required, and dictatorial state, one can be sure, would only lead to the collapse of this state. History itself has shown that such a huge country like Russia, inhabited by many peoples with a communal psychology, which directly hinders self-organization like Western civil society, a country in a hostile environment, which only thinks how to grab a piece from Russian territories, can be controlled only if help from authoritarian means. Periods of democratic freedom in Russia inevitably coincide with periods of deep state and social decline and, as a result, the revival of foreign enemies, who are buried in the wealth of Russia. The same can be said about the populist idealization of the peasantry and the rejection of industrialism. Russia needed modernization - industrialization, cultural revolution. Even the defeat in the Crimean War showed that the creation of its own scientific, technical and industrial base, not inferior to the West, for Russia is a matter of life and death. However, how could a populist Russia, consisting of closed peasant communities and deserted due to the inclination towards the countryside and the absence of a strong central government of the cities, do this?

In fact, starting from the first half of the 19th century, an ever-widening gap was outlined between the Russian intelligentsia and the autocratic Russian government. At the end of the 19th century, this gap turned into a sluggish civil war: blood was poured - both revolutionaries and government officials, explosions were heard in the streets, gallows were erected in prisons ... And the main feature of civil wars is that they are opposed by each other. a friend is not an absolute truth and an absolute delusion, as journalists tend to imagine, praising, depending on the conjuncture, one or the other side, but two half-truths. Part of the truth in the position of each side ensures its sincere appeal to romantics - the best types of civil war, its true heart. Some of the lies make this position narrow-minded and utopian.

What was the truth of the reformer king? Obviously, Russia could no longer remain patriarchal, communal-peasant, non-industrial. Time challenges, requirements national security- all this imperiously required modernization. At the same time, the tsar quite rightly believed that in our country, modernization can only be carried out from above, authoritarianly, by the forces of the state, and therefore did not rush even with a scanty constitution.

What was the truth of the Narodniks? The fact that capitalism is unacceptable in Russia, it conflicts with the very foundations of the national existence of the Russian people, it leads to the degradation of all aspects of society. The Narodniks quite rightly believed that Russia should continue to remain a country with a communal form of life, should preserve its socialist basis, which has existed in it from time immemorial.

What were the delusions of tsarism? Naturally, in dogmatic Westernism. At the heart of the reforms envisaged by both Alexander II and Alexander III and Nicholas II was the latent conviction that there is only one path of development - the capitalist one, similar to the one that the West went through. This was a natural conviction for the dynasty, which Prince Nikolai Sergeevich Trubetskoy called antinational, Romano-Germanic (Russian tsars from the Romanov dynasty after Peter the Great for the most part were not only actually Germans, having, especially by the twentieth century, in their veins an insignificant admixture of Russian blood , they also felt like Germans, remember that the father of Alexander II, Nicholas I, called himself the best Prusak in Europe. Naturally, they were kind of patriots of Russia, but at the same time they perceived Russia as a barbaric country that needs to be civilized in a European manner).

And the delusion of the Narodniks consisted, as we have already said, in their antietatism and anti-industrialism. Terror on the part of the autocratic state instilled in the populists an aversion to any kind of strong state, even a revolutionary one, mental pain for the enslaved and suffering peasantry - rejection of urban culture, industry, which they already looked at through the eyes of the peasants, as something alien and hostile.

We have before us the Hegelian thesis and antithesis, which must "remove" and complement each other in synthesis. And such a synthesis was the Leninist-Stalinist idea of ​​a non-bourgeois, non-European socialist modernization under the leadership of a strong revolutionary state. The victors in the war between the revolutionaries and the autocracy were the revolutionaries, but by no means the populists.

Well, the victor in a civil war is always the side that managed to be reborn, somehow absorb at least a part of the truth that was dear to the opposite side and earnestly defended it. Let us recall that the peculiarity of the position of the Leninists and Stalinists consisted, on the one hand, in the fact that, even if they did not openly declare this, they accepted the Slavophil motives of the Narodniks, abandoned the idea of ​​a pure proletarian revolution (Trotsky, the irreconcilable enemy of Stalin, remained faithful to it). advocated an alliance between the workers and the peasantry - a "reactionary and obsolete" class, if we follow the Marxist Westernizing dogma of "progressive capitalism" (it was not for nothing that the Bundists and Mensheviks called Lenin a Marxist Slavophile, while Trotsky generally called Stalin an Ustryalovist and a Russian imperialist and nationalist). On the other hand, the Leninists and even more so Stalin were Jacobins in politics, advocated a strong, authoritarian, dictatorial power, reminiscent, albeit unaccountably to themselves, of autocracy. It was such Lenin who created his own party, and then, following its model, the Soviet state, and thanks to this, his party and state became the only capable power in the chaos of the civil war. Moments of Slavophilism, mixed with the moments of autocracy and all this on a Marxist basis, a synthesis of autocracy and populism in the context of Marxist modernism - this is the characteristic of Leninism and Stalinism, and this is the key to their political success.

Could the Russian Orthodox monarchy have won this war against the revolutionaries? She could, if she did the same, would degenerate on the side of Slavophilism and socialism, absolutely symmetrically to the degeneration of revolutionary Marxists in the direction of Jacobinism and Slavophilism. Moreover, the corresponding ideological project already existed - this is Orthodox, monarchical socialism, which was developed by Konstantin Leontyev and Fyodor Dostoevsky Leontyev's words that Russia needs to freeze are usually understood primitively - as a call for increased repression against revolutionaries. In fact, the great Russian conservative philosopher had something else in mind - a departure from Westernism, a return to national roots, including the communal life order, a kind of Russian socialism or, as he put it about the peasant community, "Slavic, protective communism", but under the shadow of autocratic power and the Orthodox Church.

But the emperors of the Romanov dynasty, imbued with Eurocentrism, instead only went further and further along the path of westernizing Russia, aggravating the crisis and slowly moving towards the line beyond which there was a catastrophe.

It seems that the experience of Alexander II, the predecessor of Stolypin, a liberal and Westernizer, "the grandfather of the Russian revolution," is very relevant today. After all, now, as well as more than a hundred years ago, regular reformers and Westernizers are in power, and again they cut the living flesh of public life, repainting it to please the schemes adopted from the West. Let us recall once again the words from the letter of the Narodnaya Volya - they seem to have been written about the current situation in Russia, about the predatory "privatization" carried out by very selfish top officials of the state at the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st centuries: "... the government ... is open creates the most harmful class of speculators and profiteers. All its reforms lead only to the fact that the people fall into more and more slavery, more and more exploited. It has brought Russia to the point that at present the masses of the people are in a state of complete poverty and ruin ... Only the predator, the exploiter, enjoys the protection of the law and the government; the most outrageous robberies remain unpunished "

And just like the Russian peasants of the late 19th - early 20th centuries, first grumbled against the destruction of the village "world", and then took up the pitchfork and let the "red rooster" go, their descendants of the late 20th - early 21st centuries, working in factories, institutions and universities, also built on the principle of a community of a new industrial type, the "Soviet community", are already thinking about public protests and are beginning to take to the streets. And just as then, in the resistance against the autocracy, everyone united - both liberals and socialists, and now we are witnessing a "right-left opposition" opposing the Putin regime. Thank God, there is practically no "leftist terrorism" in our country (terror by Chechen separatists is a separate topic). Radical marginal groups - the Revolutionary Military Council, the Vanguard of the Red Youth, the National Bolshevik Party are content with "cultural terror" - they throw rotten eggs and mayonnaise at politicians, mine monuments ... But this is not because morals have become softer than in the 19th century, by no means , rather the opposite, but for the time being low - fortunately! - the degree of political struggle. Terror on the part of opposition groups, as we have already noted, is always a reaction to the terrorist policy of the state in relation to the revolutionaries (however, there is also a "feedback" - the terrorist initiative of the opposition also pushes the authorities towards terror). While young radicals were only ridiculed in bourgeois newspapers and on TV, they responded with bullying and abuse in their small circulation, semi-legal newspapers and on the Internet, when they began to be thrown into prisons, they began throwing tomatoes and eggs at high-ranking politicians, seizing official institutions and arranging there anti-government shows. If the government begins to kill revolutionaries by one method or another (of course, not the way the tsarist government did - by legalized executions, on death penalty we have introduced a moratorium, but there are other ways ...) - alas! - the reaction will be appropriate, bombs will fly at politicians instead of tomatoes and mayonnaise. One should be afraid of this, one wants to and one should try to avoid it, but what can be done - such is the dialectic of life, in which revolutionary and state terror are two sides of one whole.

And the current Russian government, as well as the last Russian tsars, faces the same choice: either a return to national roots, or further destruction of the country, senseless resistance to the revolutionary movement and, finally, death in the course of the revolution. Only this power, which erects pompous monuments to the tsars from the Romanov dynasty, is unlikely to be able to draw appropriate conclusions from the historical failure of these first capitalist modernizers of Russia ...

But the opposition patriots and, above all, left-wing patriots also have a choice: either excessive enthusiasm for the ideas of democracy in the course of the struggle against the anti-national authoritarianism of the authorities, and as a result - a historical dead end, since never in Russia, due to the objective conditions of its national existence , democracy was not possible and popular, or the transition to the position of patriotic authoritarianism, the ideas of a strong nationally oriented socialist state independent of the West and - victory ...

http://www.contr-tv.ru/common/1228/