TO ALEXANDER POKROVSKY The holy power brought me out of trouble, The truth rescued me from trouble. Life does not tolerate confusing fiction, It covers false tracks ... Everyone scared with a blizzard and snowdrifts: “Now evil and lies rule the world, You will meet on the road with copperheads And in an unequal battle

Pavel Medvedev (Executive Director) My victory with the Forex ClubWorking for the company helped me develop the personal and professional qualities that allowed me to grow and become who I am. We have developed a successful symbiosis with the company: I wanted to do a lot for

Ten thousand years to the emperor! So, in the mature autumn of 742, leaving the children in his home in Nanling within the city of Yanzhou under the supervision of the wife of a devoted servant Dansh, Li Po fastened his sword and, accompanied by Dansh (what kind of knight without a servant?), went on horseback to a distant

Epitaph to Leonid 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 jokes is buried near a brick wall. And we are oppressed by longing for a comrade ... a sinner, As if they got into 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 Nikolayevich Romanov received the name "Tsar-Liberator" and showed a close-up of those gathered at the opening ceremony of the monument. Spectators once again could observe the touching unity of "right" patriots - "pochvennikov" and Western liberals. Shoulder to shoulder there stood monarchists with bushy beards, politely mourning to the anthems of tsarist Russia, and Radzinsky on television, speaking in front of a microphone about the "benefits" of the liberal reforms of Alexander II in his specific voice. It is clear that each of them had his own reason: the monarchists paid their respects to Alexander II, since he was the tsar, the liberals, because he was a reformer. But still, this unnatural union was impressive.

And of course, our very "politically correct" journalists did not fail to throw mud at the Narodnaya Volya party, whose bombers killed the "tsar-liberator" on March 1, 1881, on the Catherine Canal in St. Petersburg. A brisk journalist, commenting on this century-old tragedy, said that some "modern historians" - he did not bother to name them - believe that "socialist terrorists", they say, killed the "tsar-reformer" because his reforms allegedly improved the life of the people and, therefore, hindered the development of the revolutionary situation.

What is shocking is not so much the frank ignorance of Russian history by our television "masters of minds" - it seems that many have already got used to it - but the very attitude towards their ideological opponents on the part of people who proudly call themselves "enlightened liberals" and "Russian Europeans". You can’t expect a confession like this from them: 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 ways, they were still honest, selfless, courageous people and, in their own way, wished well for their homeland. After all, in fact, the tragedy of that situation lay 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", declaring themselves to be the successors of the "tsar-liberator". And the terrorists of the late 19th century did not work for foreign funds and special services, like the Russian terrorists of the early 21st century. Thus, both Tsar Alexander II with his associates, and members of the Narodnaya Volya party, were nevertheless patriots of Russia, striving for the good for their Motherland. They just understood this good in different ways; and this misunderstanding reached such a depth that a dialogue between them became impossible: the tsar ordered the populists to be thrown into prison and hanged, and the populists, in turn, threw bombs into the royal carriage and organized explosions in his palace.

However, this could be said by a person who, perhaps, does not really favor the Narodnaya Volya, but at the same time is honest, able to rise above the ideological foam, no matter what color it may be, in the end, just loving our history, according to the great poet, such what God gave it to us... But this is not to be expected from a talker from television... He is accustomed to serve the authorities - first the former, "stagnant", now the current, "liberal". Moreover, he does it extremely clumsily: creating black-and-white simplified schemes, demonizing and vulgarizing those who the current government does not like ... Previously, he inspired that all Russian tsars were loafers and stupid, only thinking how to rob the people, and praised Zhelyabov and Perovskaya - now, on the contrary, he is pouring tubs of slop on the Narodnaya Volya and glorifying the reformer tsars.

It would seem that one should not pay attention to this, alas, typical example of our time ... At the same time, I think the case with the Narodnaya Volya and the "tsar-liberator" is special, since in fact it is very relevant today, when new "reformers" are in power, worse than the previous ones ...

So, why did the Narodnaya Volya kill the reformer tsar? Whose side was the truth on: on the side of Alexander Romanov or Andrey 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 experts with their surprisingly free handling of facts and figures - but it would be interesting and useful to know: how the Narodnaya Volya themselves explained their assassination attempt on the king. After all, revolutionaries differ from politicians who are invested with the burden of power in that they can quite frankly, without regard to the political situation and the alignment of political forces, say: what they think and what they feel. Alexander II could not publicly express what was in his heart and mind, often, he could not even publicly tell the simple truth, he obeyed decency, protocol, ceremony, the interests of the state, finally. Andrei Zhelyabov could afford such liberties. Sincerity and truth are one of the few privileges of the revolutionaries, for which they pay with social reproach, imprisonment and life itself.

A few days after the assassination of Alexander II, on March 10, 1881, the executive committee of Narodnaya Volya drafted, 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 an edition of 13 thousand copies in an underground printing house and distributed (one copy, printed on the best paper, was mailed to the palace). There, the people of Narodnaya Volya resolutely rejected the official explanation of what happened, which is now being "raised on the shield" by journalists who are lying to the new government: "The bloody tragedy that broke out on the Catherine's Canal was not an accident ... To explain such facts by the malicious intent of individuals or at least a "gang" can only a person who is completely incapable of analyzing the life of peoples .... " The following statement of the Narodnaya Volya is also quite justified: "Circumstances create revolutionaries, 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? The people of Narodnaya Volya very colorfully describe the consequences of the reforms of the “tsar-liberator”: “the imperial government ... gave the masses to the power of the nobility, at the present time it is openly creating 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, is being exploited more and more. It has brought Russia to the point where 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 go unpunished."

But why do revolutionaries express their dissatisfaction through such a cruel political method as terror? Here, too, the members of the Narodnaya Volya 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 it is not devoid of logic. The Narodnaya Volya members point out that the government itself does not allow the intelligentsia to peacefully propagate those views that they consider true, openly and publicly criticize the government, pointing out to it the sores of public life, the corruption of officials, the plight in the countryside and in factories. Moreover, the government imprisons and hangs representatives of the intelligentsia who dared to raise their voices against the outrages of Russian life: “You know, Your Majesty, that the government of the late emperor cannot be blamed for a lack of energy. Entire dozens of so-called "leaders" have been caught, hanged." But responding to criticism, proposals and propaganda with arrests, exiles, executions, the authorities thereby achieve only the opposite effect, the growth of the revolutionary movement: “What benefit did the death of the Dolgushites, Chaikovites, leaders of 1874 bring to the government? They were replaced by much more determined Narodniks. Terrible government reprisals then called the terrorists of 1878-1879 onto the scene. In vain did the government exterminate the Kovalskys, Dubrovins, Osinskys, Lizogubs. In vain did it destroy dozens of revolutionary circles. Of these imperfect organizations, only stronger forms are developed by natural selection. Finally, the Executive appears. Committee..".

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

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

If the tsar fulfills these conditions, the People's Will party promised to stop terror and dissolve itself: "Believe that as soon as the supreme power ceases to be arbitrary, as soon as it firmly decides to carry out only the demands of the people's consciousness and conscience ... The Executive Committee itself will stop its activities and the forces organized around it will disperse in order to devote themselves to cultural work for the good of their native people. A peaceful, ideological struggle will replace violence, which is more disgusting to us than to your servants .. ".

So, according to the Narodnaya Volya members themselves, the reasons for issuing and enacting the death sentence to Alexander II were as follows:

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

The unwillingness 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 the revolutionaries to use peaceful methods of propaganda and influence on the opinion of the people.

The very enumeration of these reasons immediately forces one to question the canonical image of Narodnaya Volya that has long been rooted in the Russian mind. It is no secret that semiofficial Soviet propaganda sought to present practically all currents of the revolutionary movement in Russia as peculiar predecessors of the Bolsheviks. And although she did not hide the differences 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 were unconsciously perceived by many as "Bolsheviks before the Bolsheviks." Now the post-Soviet agitprop is actively exploiting this stereotype of ancient times, hence the tales about terror fanatics who dreamed of creating a revolutionary situation arise. The reality, as we see, is quite different.

First, the Narodnaya Volya were not terror fanatics. They considered the terror of the oppositionists a necessary measure, a response to the terror of the government. That is, the Narodnaya Volya were principled opponents of terror as a state 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 did not come 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, even the most "advanced" class, but of the self-government of the whole people. This stemmed from their essentially Slavophile views of the people as the only source of historical truth. Having no special sympathy for either the nobility or the clergy, the populists believed, as we saw in the example of the letter to Alexander III, that these estates should also be represented in the organ of popular representation. In the event that 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 force. It is clear from the said letter that the Narodnaya Volya would have accepted the monarchy if it had not been 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, at the same time, was to be established in as a result of the peaceful propaganda of the ideas of democracy among the peasant majority). Incidentally, according to historians, this opinion was openly expressed by N. Morozov, a member of the Executive Committee of Narodnaya Volya.

Secondly, the people of Narodnaya Volya were by no means fanatics of a political revolution and did not at all want to create a revolutionary situation at any cost. The Narodnaya Volya 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 ownership and 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, the program of "Narodnaya Volya" included an item on the uprising, but, as we see from the letter to the tsar, it was also considered as an extreme and undesirable measure. Much more acceptable to the Narodnaya Volya was a peaceful, bloodless transition to popular representation, by decision of the tsar himself, albeit adopted under the pressure of the revolutionary intelligentsia. It is obvious that this position has little in common with the teaching of revolutionary Marxism that the transition from one social formation to another takes place, according to the law of dialectics, necessarily by way of a political revolution. And again, this was due to the fact that the populists were not Marxists at all, but left-wing Slavophiles (their difference from the right-wing Slavophiles consisted only in the fact that in the triad "Orthodoxy-autocracy-nationality" they emphasized nationality, at the same time 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 Pyotr Khomyakov and Kireevsky). Therefore, the populists saw history not as a series of socio-economic formations driven by the "locomotives of history" - revolutions, but as the creativity of the geniuses of peoples, embodied in the activities of an active minority, the intelligentsia, selflessly serving their people.

One can only sincerely be surprised that Orthodox patriots-soilists curse Russian populists - the most consistent and resolute opponents of the establishment of Western-type capitalism in Russia, defenders of a special Russian path of development, albeit leftist, but still continuers of the cause of the Slavophiles, and glorify Emperor Alexander II - another "best German" on the Russian throne, a zealous Westernizer, like all the Romanovs after Peter, who, with his liberal reforms, just planted European-style capitalism (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 will, responsible for the most severe censorship, political disenfranchisement 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. Of course, he did not even think about any democratic elections and amnesties for political prisoners. The Narodnaya Volya were captured and sentenced to death by hanging. When the philosopher Vladimir Solovyov proposed to Alexander the Third to forgive the regicides in a Christian way and replace their death with another punishment, the "Orthodox sovereign" replied with a phrase that characterizes the great Russian philosopher rather unflatteringly - so much so that I am embarrassed to quote it here.

And then everything happened as predicted by the letter of the Narodnaya Volya. State repressions were intensified, the revolutionary movement, despite this, but rather, because of this, grew. The Narodnaya Volya terrorists were replaced by the Socialist-Revolutionary terrorists, the Social Democrats carried out propaganda among the workers, and the intelligentsia was completely embraced by the Cadet ideas. Terror on the part of the state, which could have had an effect as an extreme and short-term measure, being turned into a permanent policy, only embittered the revolutionaries, made them stronger, more hardened, more implacable. At the same time, the capitalist reforms, destroying the traditional Russian way of life, continued, causing more and more indignation of all sections of the population, except for the 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 certain sense, the reform of 1861 was the forerunner of Stolypin's reforms. After all, the point was not that Alexander II finally freed the peasants from serfdom. The fact is that the liberation 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 were absolutely right when they said that such reforms were beneficial only to a handful of speculators and capitalists (the irony of history: these reforms ultimately turned out to be unprofitable even for tsarism itself, undermining its foundation, the rural patriarchal community!).

The result of the capitalization of Russia, produced by the imperious hand of the Western autocracy, turned out to be quite natural, foreseen by the Narodnaya Volya back in the 80s. 19th century. Dissatisfaction with the authorities seized such wide sections of the population that the three-hundred-year-old monarchy of the Romanovs fell on February 17 in three days with the complete indifference of its subjects.

However, imagine that a miracle would happen and the ideal of the Narodniks would be realized - a peasant, socialist federal Russia would be formed with an organ of broad popular representation at the head and without any firm vertical of power. Naturally, the cessation of capitalist reforms, the complete transition to communal landownership, to peasant socialism, responded to the urges of the Russian soul and would have been accomplished by the necessary straightening of the dislocation that had been inflicted on it by Westernization. However, the naive democracy of the Narodniks, their rejection of the ideas of a strong, if required, dictatorial state, one can be sure, would only lead to the collapse of this state. History itself has shown that such a huge country as Russia, inhabited by many peoples with a community psychology that directly prevents self-organization like Western civil society, a country that is in a hostile environment, which only thinks how to grab a piece from Russian territories, can only be managed 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 covet Russia's wealth. 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 Western one, for Russia is a matter of life and death. However, how could Narodnik Russia, consisting of closed peasant communities and deserted due to the tilt towards the countryside and the absence of a strong central government in 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 shed - both revolutionaries and government officials, explosions were heard in the streets, gallows were built in prisons .... And the main feature of civil wars is that they confront each other friend is not absolute truth and absolute error, as journalists are inclined to present, praising, depending on the situation, now one side, then the other, but two half-truths. Part of the truth in the position of each of the parties ensures its sincere appeal to romantics - the best types of the civil war, its true heart. Part of the lie makes this position limited and utopian.

What was the truth of the tsar-reformer? Obviously, in that Russia could no longer remain patriarchal, communal-peasant, non-industrial. The challenges of the time, the requirements of national security - all this imperiously demanded modernization. At the same time, the tsar quite rightly believed that modernization in our country could only be carried out from above, authoritarianally, by the forces of the state, and therefore was in no hurry even with a scant 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 had existed in it from time immemorial.

What were the errors of tsarism? Naturally, in dogmatic Westernism. At the heart of the reforms envisaged by Alexander the Second, and Alexander the Third and Nicholas II lay the underlying belief that there is only one path of development - the capitalist one, similar to the one that the West has gone through. This was a natural conviction for the dynasty, which Prince Nikolai Sergeevich Trubetskoy called anti-national, 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 20th century, in their veins an insignificant admixture of Russian blood , they felt like Germans, remember that the father of Alexander II - Nicholas I called himself the best Prussian 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 error of the Narodniks consisted, as we have already said, in their anti-statism and anti-industrialism. Terror from the autocratic state instilled in the populists a disgust for any kind of strong state, even a revolutionary one, an emotional pain for the enslaved and suffering peasantry - the rejection of urban culture, industry, which they already looked at through the eyes of the peasants, as something alien and hostile.

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

Well, the winner in a civil war is always the side that managed to be reborn, one way or another to absorb at least part of the truth that was dear to the opposite side and devoutly defended itself. Let us recall that the peculiarity of the position of the Leninists and Stalinists was, on the one hand, that they, even without declaring it openly, accepted the Slavophile motives of the Narodniks, abandoned the idea of ​​​​a pure proletarian revolution (Trotsky, Stalin’s implacable opponent, remained faithful to it), advocated an alliance between the workers and the peasantry, a "reactionary and obsolete" class, if one follows the Marxist Western 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, they advocated a strong, authoritarian, dictatorial power, reminiscent, albeit unconsciously for themselves, of autocracy. It was this Lenin who created his 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 moments of autocracy, and all this on a Marxist basis, the synthesis of autocracy and populism in the context of Marxist modernism - this is the characteristic of Leninism and Stalinism in this, the key to their political success.

But could the Orthodox Russian monarchy win this war with the revolutionaries? She could, if she did the same, degenerate from the side of Slavophilism and socialism, absolutely symmetrically to the degeneration of the Marxist revolutionaries towards Jacobinism and Slavophilism. Moreover, the corresponding ideological project already existed - this is Orthodox, monarchical socialism, which was developed by Konstantin Leontiev and Fyodor Dostoevsky Leontiev's words that Russia needs to be frozen 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 communal living arrangements, 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 Westernization of Russia, exacerbating the crisis and slowly walking 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, just like more than a hundred years ago, regular reformers and Westernizers are in power, and again they are cutting the flesh of public life to the living, reshaping 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 be written about the current situation in Russia, about the predatory "privatization" carried out by very disinterested top officials of the state in the late 20th and early 21st centuries: "... the government ..... open creates the most harmful class of speculators and profiteers. All its reforms only lead 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 the present time the masses of the people are in a state of complete poverty and ruin ... Only the predator, the exploiter, enjoys the protection of law and government; the most outrageous robberies go unpunished"

And just like the Russian peasants of the late 19th - early 20th century, at first they grumbled against the destruction of the village "world", and then they took up the pitchfork and let the "red rooster" in, their descendants of the late 20th - early 21st centuries, working in factories, factories, in institutions and universities, also built on the principle of a new industrial type of community, the "Soviet community", are already thinking about public protests, are starting to take to the streets. And just as then, everyone - both liberals and socialists - united in resistance against the autocracy, and now we are seeing a "right-left opposition" opposing the Putin regime. Thank God, there is practically no "left terrorism" in our country (terror by Chechen separatists is a separate issue). Radical marginal groups - the Revolutionary Military Council, the Vanguard of the Red Youth, the National Bolshevik Party are content with "cultural terror" - throwing rotten eggs and mayonnaise at politicians, mining monuments ... But this is not because morals have become softer than in the 19th century, by no means , rather the opposite, but in the meantime low - fortunately! - degree of political struggle. Terror by opposition groups, as we have already noted, is always a reaction to the terrorist policy of the state towards revolutionaries (however, there is also a "feedback" - the terrorist initiative of the opposition also pushes the authorities to terror). While young radicals were only ridiculed in bourgeois newspapers and on TV, they responded with mockery and abuse in their small-circulation, semi-legal newspapers and on the Internet, when they began to be thrown into prisons, they began to throw tomatoes and eggs at high-ranking politicians, seize official institutions and organize anti-government shows. If the government begins to kill revolutionaries by one method or another (of course, not in the way the tsarist government did - by legal executions, we have a moratorium on the death penalty, but there are other ways ...) - alas! - the reaction will be appropriate, instead of tomatoes and mayonnaise, bombs will fly at politicians. This should be feared, this is what one wants and must try to avoid, 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, like 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 during the revolution. But it is unlikely that this government, which erects pompous monuments to the tsars from the Romanov dynasty, is able to draw the appropriate conclusions from the historical failure of these first capitalist modernizers of Russia ....

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

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

The bloody tragedy that broke out on the Catherine's Canal was not an accident and was not unexpected for anyone. After everything that has happened over the past decade, it was completely inevitable, and this is its deep meaning, which a person placed by fate at the head of government power must understand. Only a person who is completely incapable of analyzing the life of peoples can explain such facts as the malicious intent of individuals, or at least a "gang". For a whole 10 years we see how in our country, despite the most severe persecution, despite the fact that the government of the late Emperor sacrificed everything - freedom, the interests of all classes, the interests of industry and even its own dignity - unconditionally sacrificed everything for the suppression of the revolutionary movement, it nevertheless, it stubbornly grew, attracting the best elements of the country, the most energetic and selfless people of Russia, and for three years now it has entered into a desperate, guerrilla war with the government. You know, Your Majesty, that the government of the late Emperor cannot be blamed for a lack of energy. In our country, both the right and the guilty were hanged, prisons and remote provinces were overflowing with exiles. Entire dozens of so-called "leaders" were caught, hung up: they died with the courage and calmness of martyrs, but the movement did not stop, it grew unceasingly and strengthened. Yes, Your Majesty, the revolutionary movement is not a business that depends on individuals. This is the process of the people's organism, and the gallows erected for the most energetic spokesmen of this process are just as powerless to save the obsolete order, just as the death of the Savior on the Cross did not save the corrupted ancient world from the triumph of reforming Christianity.

The government, of course, can still catch and outweigh many many individuals. It can destroy many separate revolutionary groups. Let us assume that it destroys even the most serious revolutionary organizations in existence. But all this will not change the situation in the least. Revolutionaries are created by circumstances, the general displeasure of the people, Russia's striving for new social forms. It is impossible to exterminate the entire people, and it is also impossible to destroy their discontent through reprisals; displeasure, on the contrary, grows from this ...

... Whatever the intentions of the sovereign, but the actions of the government have nothing to do with the people's benefit and aspirations. The imperial government subordinated the people to serfdom, handed over the masses to the power of the nobility; at the present time it is openly creating the most harmful class of speculators and speculators. All his reforms only lead to the fact that the people fall into more and more slavery, more and more exploited. It has brought Russia to the point where at present the masses of the people are in a state of complete poverty and ruin, are not free from the most offensive surveillance even at their home, are not in power even in their worldly, public affairs ...

... That is why the Russian government has no moral influence, no support among the people; that is why Russia produces so many revolutionaries; that is why even such a fact as regicide arouses joy and sympathy in a huge part of the population! Yes, Your Majesty, do not be fooled by the opinions of flatterers and servants. Regicide in Russia is very popular.

There can be two ways out of this situation: either a revolution, absolutely inevitable, which cannot be prevented by any executions, or a voluntary appeal of the Supreme Power to the people. In the interests of our native country, in order to avoid the wasted loss of strength, in order to avoid those very terrible disasters that always accompany a revolution, the Executive Committee addresses Your Majesty with advice to choose the second path ...

... We are addressing you, having cast aside all prejudices, having suppressed the distrust that has been created by the centuries-old activity of the government. We forget that you are the representative of the government that only deceived the people and did them so much harm. We address you as a citizen and an honest person. We hope that the feeling of personal bitterness will not drown out in you the consciousness of your duties and the desire to know the truth. We can also be angry. You have lost your father. We lost not only fathers, but also brothers, wives, children, best friends. But we are ready to stifle personal feelings if the good of Russia so requires. We expect the same from you...

...So, Your Majesty - decide. There are two paths in front of you. The choice depends on you. Then we can only ask fate that your mind and conscience suggest you a decision that is the only one consistent with the good of Russia, with your own dignity and duties to your native country.

Maria diligently folded expensive sheets. The emperor did not listen, violence and repression continued. Well?! The fight didn't stop either. She will carry this letter around the province, let the people read it. A young birch withstood the hurricane. She bent, rested her top against the ground, like a stretched bow, but survived ... She survives too.

It was raining. The wind ruffled the rotten straw on the roofs of the village huts. Lichen showed through on the rain-blackened logs. The tow with heavy drops of rain was shaking.

The village of Goreloye, in which Maria taught for the third year, was buried in autumn mud. On the side of the road, washed out by rain, stunted elderberry bushes with withered leaves stuck out forlornly. The aspen fluttered, covering the road with gray circles.

Having tied her scarf and turned up the collar of her jacket, Maria hurried. My feet slid apart in the sticky mud. She pulled them out with difficulty. The paramedic's bag with tools pulled his hand away. You have to go through the old mill. The wind tossed its twisted wings, and the water hummed along the dam, lined with wicker willow. After waiting for a gust of wind, Maria, through the veil of rain, made out a light in a still distant hut. Fedya ran ahead in a long coat, girded with a rope. An old hat is pulled down over the very eyes. The boy stopped, waited for her to get over the puddle.

Now soon! And there is dad at the hut!

Maria hurried, risking falling onto the rain-washed road. A light flickered faintly in the house. A bearded man stood in the doorway. The wind blew the canvas shirt like a sail. In the unbuttoned collar of his shirt, a pewter cross was visible on a cord. He brushed raindrops from his face, and maybe even tears.

Go to the house, Savely! Maria handed him the bag. - You'll catch a cold! The weather is...

Maria wiped her feet on a large stone - a millstone, hollowed out and chipped. She pushed open the door and immediately found herself in the upper room. Suffocated with sour sheepskin. By the Russian stove, which occupied most of the hut, a lamb lay in a curled ball. On the earthen floor there is a bucket covered with gray corydalis. On a high ear is a rooster with a red eye. On the bench, under a colorful patchwork quilt, a sick boy tossed about. In the corner in front of the icon, a woman was kneeling, whom Mary did not immediately notice.

Maria greeted. The woman rose reluctantly from her knees. Her face was swollen with tears. She silently approached her son and threw back the covers.

Which day is sick? Maria asked.

The third ... They brought earth from the grave of the tyatenko, put it on the breast, but the heat does not go away! The woman ran her hand over the child's burning forehead.

Earth?! What for?

They say it helps with fever.

Maria shook her head: such a "treatment" was the most common in the village, no matter how much she explained its uselessness. She washed her hands over the clay bowl and went over to the boy.

Vasyatka was in his fifth year. Mary knew him. How often he calmed down at the door, escorting his brother to school. That's how she remembered it - swirling, blue-eyed, standing at the door frame and listening to a fairy tale. And now the friend was unrecognizable. Crimson-violet fire blazed on his cheeks. The boy tossed about, his thin belly now heaving high, then retracting to the spine. Vasya was suffocating.