You, if anything, do not think badly for me
I myself, and a great power, and a chauvinist, and in general a supporter of big states and countries. Well, at least because the more people, the easier, easier, and even better it is to live. Not without reason, from ancient Russian times, the proverb teaches: - "A herd and a father are easier to beat"
Therefore, with pleasure I read all sorts of debunkers of historical falsifications (well, even children know that the Jewish Masons with the Germans perverted our history in order to enslave)
But this titan of thought eclipsed everyone

Pyzhikov, Alexander Vladimirovich
Russian historian and statesman,
specialist in the history of Russia of the XX century. Doctor of Historical Sciences.

.

Pyzhikov with bags, a lovely stranger and Spitsyn under the arm

.
Spitsyn, Evgeny Yuryevich - also a historian, and also a titan of thought, wrote a five-volume (!!!) "Complete course of the history of Russia for teachers" Since the enemies of Russia refused to print this work, he printed it himself, with the money of sponsors.
On them and walks conducts further research (Damn! already jealous, I want that too)
...
Both of them are distinguished by uncomplicated views. But Pyzhikov, in my opinion, is cooler.
His searching mind fell upon many topics, among which the following stand out:-

And more from here. Treatise has a dramatic, chilling title: - "Polish-Ukrainian conspiracy in Russian history"

Doctor of Historical Sciences Alexander Pyzhikov talks about his new book "Slavic Fault". What did the Kiev region bring to Russia in a meaningful, ideological, state and religious sense. What position did the Commonwealth occupy in the international market, and how Ivan the Terrible violated the plans of the Polish-Lithuanian elite. Who did the Romanovs rely on when they came to power? Why is it so important to return our true history.

Turns out!
It’s not the Jews at all, and not the Kamenshiks, and not even the damned dumb thing that are to blame for everything ...
A Polish-Ukrainian Great Plot to Seize Power in Russia
Which (Attention!) completed successfully
And now we live under the Polish-Ukrainian yoke, enslaved to the very throat, and from this all our troubles (and not from women, as some people think)
What to do now? - you ask (I asked)
There is a recipe! - answers Pyzhikov
The ROC, as the main instrument of the conspiracy, should be renamed from Russian to Ukrainian
Join Ukraine to Poland, since they are one and the same people
Choose a president such that from the Old Believers, because only they are not traitors
Well, after that, how will we live!

Zadolbali, honest word!
The mind has completely gone beyond the mind, or what? With what hangover did Ukrainians become non-Russians?
Behind the latest political upheavals, some have already begun to forget that Ukrainians are also Russians
Come on! Even in the days of Soviet internationalism, this fact, although not emphasized, was not hushed up either.
Ukrainians, like Belarusians, like Russians proper, are one of the three large Russian peoples
United common origin (Ancient Rus'), language (Old Slavonic) and territory of residence.
Last year, a family from Chernigov moved to Krasnodar. For a year, everyone successfully forgot the Ukrainian language, fully adapted to life and also scolded the local order - no one can distinguish it from ordinary visitors from other regions of Russia. Both children go to school, they switched to Russian language very easily, and also, even if desired, they cannot be distinguished from others.
Because it doesn't happen with your own people. Poles, even completely Russified, even in the third generation, are different. And the Ukrainians-no.
...
And therefore, to want to separate them from us, and join some kind of Poles
Maybe only a fool or the last bastard (well, or not the last, but still a bastard)

For a long time I could not understand why Professor Pyzhikov did not like Ukraine.
It seems to be a decent person, he wrote a good book about the Old Believers.
A week ago I met him in a sushi bar on Maroseyka * , listened whole hour and understood.

From Pyzhikov's point of view, for the last 400 years Russia has been ruled by the Ukrainian authorities. The Romanovs, starting with Alexei the Quietest, relied on the people of Kiev, eradicating Russian in Russians
- Ukrainians imposed this Kyiv, these Slavs, this damned Europe on us.
- I mean, imposed? Russia is not Europe, Russians are not Slavs?
- No! I found in the archives a book written in 1868. Vladimir Stasov. There he proves that Russian epics - about Ilya Muromets, about Dobrynya Nikitich - were actually stolen from the Turks.
- ?
- Ukrainians who came to Moscow took the local epic, which is all Turkic, and repainted it to look like Slavic. so that the Russians think they are Slavs.
- and in fact?
- Yes, she went to hell, this Ukraine! together with Europe and the Slavs! imposed on us this Dnieper, this mother of Russian cities. Why do we need all this? forget Ukraine. we are Turks. we have more in common with Kyrgyz and Uzbeks
- call the waitress
- Sadgul, honey, bring a teapot of milk oolong
- tiny Sadgul, smiling snow-white, nods and hurries to the kitchen
- Russians need to return to their father's house
- looks thoughtfully at the hair of the departing girl, dark as night
- China, India, the great silk road, middle Asia. there are our values. and this Ukraine, these are their values
- waving hand dismissively
- Ukrainians want to go to Europe...
- and wonderful! let them go! you will throw off the idea of ​​​​Europe imposed on us by the Ukrainians and breathe freely. maybe for the first time in 400 years
- Sadgul brought a teapot, the professor looks at her tenderly
-thank you honey
- Will you order more?
- don't rush, honey. do not rush.

* * *
Alexander Vladimirovich Pyzhikov

Chief Researcher of the RANEPA, Doctor of Historical Sciences, winner of the Yegor Gaidar Prize in the nomination "For outstanding contribution to the field of history", author of the book "The Edges of the Russian Schism: Notes on Our History from the 17th Century to 1917".
In 2000-2003, Assistant to the Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation.
From June 5, 2003 to June 18, 2004 - Deputy Minister of Education Russian Federation.

*
Maroseyka- distorted by the natives "Little Russian" - the name of the area where the very Ukrainians invited to Moscow to lead the education of Muscovites, about whom Professor Pyzhikov speaks, settled.

P.S.
To complete the picture, it is necessary to clarify here that another modern Russian historian considers the Tatars not the Turks, but the Finno-Ugric peoples:

Moreover, I will tell you a secret: Russians and Tatars are very close in origin. Because the blood of the Finno-Ugric peoples flows at the base of both.
Neither the Russian nor the Tatar intelligentsia want to recognize this. Or they just don't know about it.
And genetic data show just that. And it’s not difficult to guess for yourself, because the ancient inhabitants of the Eastern European forests and forest-steppes are “overwritten” in the history of the Finno-Ugric peoples.
And then the Slavs and Turks came here. Moreover, they did not make up the majority, but they passed on their language, part of the culture and self-consciousness.
Therefore, I would have remade the saying a long time ago: "Scratch a Russian, you will scrape off a Tatar" into a more historically true one: "Scratch a Russian, you will scrape off a Finno-Ugric".

Alexander Vladimirovich Pyzhikov (November 27, 1965, Ramenskoye, Moscow region, RSFSR, USSR - September 17, 2019, Moscow, Russia) is a Russian historian and statesman, a specialist in the history of Russia in the 50-60s of the XX century. Doctor of Historical Sciences.

In 1989 he graduated from the Faculty of History of the Moscow Regional Pedagogical Institute named after N. K. Krupskaya.

In 1993, he was director of the Center for Socio-Political Programs of the Youth for Russia Foundation in Ramenskoye.

In December 1993, he ran for the State Duma of the Russian Federation on the list of the electoral association "The Future of Russia - New Names", but with 1.25% of the votes he was not elected. In 1995, he ran as a candidate for deputies of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation of the second convocation in Kurgan region on the list of the electoral bloc "Ivan Rybkin Bloc", was not elected.

Since 1994 - Director of the Information and Analytical Center of the Central Committee of the Russian Youth Union.

He was deputy director of the Institute for Social and Political Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

In 1998 he defended his thesis for the competition degree candidate of historical sciences on the topic "Socio-political development of Soviet society in 1953-1964" (specialty 07.00.02 - "national history").

In 1999 he defended his dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Historical Sciences on the topic "Historical experience of the political reform of Soviet society in the 50s-60s" (specialty 07.00.02 - "national history").

In 2000-2003, Assistant to the Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation M.M. Kasyanov.

From June 5, 2003 to June 18, 2004 - Deputy Minister of Education of the Russian Federation. In this position, he dealt with issues of quality control of education and state certification in educational institutions of all types and types.

Books (6)

Borders of the Russian split. Notes on our history from the 17th century to 1917

The book presents a view of Russian history through the prism of the Russian religious schism.

The upheavals that occurred in Russia and caused by church reforms mid-seventeenth century, had a great influence on the development of the country in the next two centuries. The complex processes that took place then left their mark on the entire social fabric. Russian society. It is in the confessional originality that the origins of the key events of our history associated with the collapse of the Russian empire in its Nikonian guise at the beginning of the 20th century lie.

Roots of Stalinist Bolshevism

Much has been written about the revolution and Stalin, but in this work the author proposes to take a fresh look at our history.

The book is based on a look at the difference between Leninist and Stalinist Bolshevism. These two currents had different origins, social base, ideological aspirations. It would not be an exaggeration to say that they were united only by an external "sign" and a set of common slogans, which largely limits their similarity. Understanding this circumstance opens up new horizons not only from a scientific, but also from a practical point of view. Allows you to more deeply comprehend the turbulent events of the domestic XX century. The book will be of interest to anyone who is not indifferent to the history of their country.

Peter - Moscow. Fight for Russia

For a long time, almost until October 1917, the ideas of Petersburgers and Muscovites about the modernization of Russia were very different. Petersburg pursued its own path, which was realized by the state elite and the metropolitan business group, and the role of the opponent was played by the Moscow merchants and the cadet party, guided by completely different ideological priorities.

What is the root of the eternal confrontation between the two great cities of Russia - St. Petersburg and Moscow? Why is the historical canvas of our common past filled with episodes of their confrontation, conflict and competition?

Alexander Pyzhikov, Doctor of Historical Sciences, author of the books The Birth of a “Superpower”: the USSR in the First Post-War Years, Khrushchev’s Thaw, and Edges of the Russian Split, provides readers with a fresh look at many key points and significant milestones Russian history.

Birth of a superpower: 1945-1953

The book deals with milestone history of Soviet society - the period 1945-1953. Analyzing various aspects of external and domestic policy USSR, the authors attempt a comprehensive assessment of the post-war Soviet society.

The study is based on unique archival documents, many of which are introduced into scientific circulation for the first time. A wide source base made it possible to clarify whole line questions international politics country, the functioning of the party-state power, the ideological system, etc.

Slavic break. Ukrainian-Polish yoke in Russia

Why is Kyiv and the southwestern principalities considered to be the center of all Russian history? By whose will is the no less ancient North (Novgorod, Pskov, Smolensk, Ryazan) or the Volga region considered to be second-rate?

This book shows with merciless clarity why the entire history of our country is presented exclusively from pro-Western, South Slavic and Polish positions. The facts collected here testify that we are not talking about a coincidence of circumstances, but about the purposeful centuries-old occupation of Russia, about the total spiritual and religious dictate of the polonized public, skillfully covering up its dominance. It was its representatives, who became the main pillar of the Romanov throne, who constructed the state-religious framework, which to this day blocks the memory of our population. Various Germans and others, who had poured into the elite in abundance since the time of Peter I, only corrected the building that was not erected by them.

This book will be a revelation for many, because the proposed historical perspective is too unusual.

Khrushchev's "Thaw" 1953-1964

"Thaw"... This is how the stage of development of our country, associated with the name of N. S. Khrushchev, is characterized.

In the 60s of our century, this time attracted Special attention historians. Evaluation of this period national history today is largely based on the works of researchers and publicists of the late 80s, early 90s of the XX century. To what extent do the views of these years correspond to the objective processes taking place in the first post-Stalin decade? Do we correctly understand the significance and place of Khrushchev's reforms in our history?

This book attempts to answer these questions.

Reader Comments

Victor / 8.02.2020 Eternal Glory Alexander Vladimirovich. And the banner must be raised and held tight

Elena/ 12.12.2019 The Great Man left us on the rise of a creative exploration life. How many valuable discoveries we will never know. A terrible blow to Russian science. The loss is irreparable.
Alexander Vladimirovich put me on the rails of my family, opened the Russian world to me, showed me in which direction to move, what to value, and what to protect myself from forever. He gave me wings, he gave me courage. There was a friend nearby, and now ... I did not have time to thank Alexander for the wonderful books. I thought, I’ll sit down, concentrate and write a letter of thanks. Didn't write. (When will we learn to be grateful here and now!) My heart cannot come to terms with a heavy loss.
My condolences to the family. Surrounded by caring relatives, a major scientist Alexander Pyzhikov.
Blessed memory to him.
Kyiv

Olga/ 11/15/2019 I literally read his first lecture and realized that this was the Spark of Truth. She herself was lit up from him .... then I look further, and there is the news of his death. Well, it can't be, when will it end? As soon as there is an outlet for the soul, the end is one. Condolences for the pain and loss....

Elena/ 20.10.2019 Pyzhikov is a light in the darkness of history. It is a pity that I did not have time to publish the planned books. Read and listen and write
swear by the truth. Thank him very much.

Alna/ 10/19/2019 The pain of loss! I cried like for my own! I hope that there will be young people who will name their son in his honor, Alexander!

Vyacheslav/ 10/18/2019 I agree with everything written above. It hurts from the death of such a bright person. Question. Who will raise his banner? Who will continue what they started.

KONSTANTIN ALEKSEENKO/ 09/29/2019 A great, wise and honest man with a great Russian Soul left us. Glory to Alexander Vladimirovich.

Ludmila/ 09/23/2019 Too deeply and truthfully revealed the secrets of those who did not like it .. I don’t believe that they didn’t help to leave .. sorrow .. Bright Memory of a Bright Man ..

Marina Shubina/ 19.09.2019 The trembling of HIS WISE HEART sounds in our SOULS and we say YES! Truth, Ancestors, Love, LIFE! Is it possible to get out of life? The thrill of Life is eternal as long as we remember and love and think with the heart.

Russian Staircase/ 19.09.2019 Alexander Pyzhikov.
Sweet, plump, with the eyes of a kind child...
Here is the flash!
Brighter than the Chelyabinsk meteorite.

His death is not accidental in every sense.
It just so happened that only she highlights the Truth in such a way that it hurts the eyes.

On the night of Alexander's death, I had a correspondence with Hasai Aliyev about him.
Like, they need to cooperate. Like, they have one idea about the unity of all peoples who are separated by someone and for some reason. It does not matter that at once the contact failed. Doesn't matter!

***
Now, for sure, it doesn't matter.
To the delight of the enemies or to them on the mountain, he slipped into the Other World, having managed to light a torch in the darkness of lies.
What a pity...
I never thought that someone from the computer would touch the heart so much ...

***
I feel like a personal loss.
Without hesitation, I put him on a par with Seraphim of Sarov.

There is no need to waste letters on the presentation of his works.
Listen for yourself and let, finally, pain and happiness become simultaneous.
Let our Slavic heart, hardened, get wet and break from sadness and Truth.

Alexander Pyzhikov: “My work is an invitation to further conversation”

"Lessons of History" continues to acquaint readers with participants nominated for the Gaidar Foundation Prize in the nomination "For outstanding contribution to the field of history." Today we are talking with Alexander Pyzhikov, the winner of the competition, the author of the monograph "The Edges of the Russian Schism" (M.: Drevlehrashchile, 2013).

Interview with Elena Kalashnikova

- When I was preparing for the interview, I realized that you are a specialist in the history of the 20th century.

Of course, and not the Old Believers, as some confuse.

- And they wrote the book "The Edges of the Russian Schism". How did you come up with the idea to address the schism, after all, before that you were engaged in research on the history of Russia in the middle of the 20th century?

Khrushchev, "thaw". A book was published, I was engaged in this for almost the entire 1990s, as well as the late Stalinist period (after 1945). And then this ceased to satisfy me, and I decided to slow down, because there were proposals to switch to the Brezhnev era, to Kosygin's reforms, to the Politburo ...

- And from whom did these proposals come?

From the same V. A. Mau, I have known him for a long time, I now work for him. He is a strong researcher and his advice is always useful, I listen to them. He once told me: "Rise farther from Khrushchev, this is correct from the point of view of scientific methodology." But it did not work out, which I do not regret now. Why didn't I - I decided to reconsider the whole scientific approach and I felt it in my personal research experience. New approaches were needed to get away from the class view, which is already sickening in fact, because everything is invested in this scheme, monumentally written by Lenin-Stalin. But this is stupidity from the point of view of science! And I decided to take a religious approach, it was very unusual. Let me explain, in Western science the positivist approach dominated (I won’t say that it’s bad, it’s just that it has long been established). It has its own advantage, it raises the strength of the fact, its reliability, to the shield. And Marxism, not Stalinist, of course, is already complete squalor, momentary journalism, and the teachings of Marx, who had his say in the 19th century, were scientific. Those who study Marx - which I do not at all pretend to - and there are not many of them, argue that he is really a scientist - an adherent of extreme positivism. So, if positivism as a historical trend has some drawback, it is that everything else is discarded. The positivists take the reliability of the fact, there is a fact - we are talking, there is no fact - we have nothing to talk about. And in this way they move along the entire historical canvas. What is the limitation? The archival fact does not capture the entire historical atmosphere of a particular period that we are studying. It comes to the ridiculous - we argue about Stalin with Western professors who have been studying him for more than a dozen years, I tell them with irony: "Show me a document that Stalin breathed." They answer in all seriousness that they have not seen such a document. So you didn't breathe? This is a certain limitation of positivism, although, of course, it is quite correct to use facts and strive for certainty. And in order to revive the picture and capture the spirit of the period that you study with the help of archival documents, you need to bring in an understanding of the cultural atmosphere. Positivism and Marxism, I repeat, reject all this, believing that it interferes.

- And how did you decide to convey the spirit of the era?

It was here that I decided to rely on a religious approach. And it turns out a very interesting picture - after all, the entire modern European civilization has emerged from a religious schism. This is an absolute and indisputable fact. political parties in our understanding then it was not, and therefore public interests were expressed through religious institutions. I drew attention to the circumstance that became the starting point - religious wars, an integral part of the Middle Ages, and the way out of them became the way out of the Middle Ages into modern times. In the West, it was a struggle between two "parties" in religious garb - Catholics and Protestants. We had the same thing, only 100 years later, in the 17th century, and everything ended with them when we just started, in 1648 Thirty Years' War ceased, the Peace of Westphalia was signed. Its main principle, the cornerstone of Western civilization - whose country, that and faith. All the opposing sides, who had been slaughtering each other for more than a dozen years, calmed down and dispersed to their confessional "apartments". Faith, which was in every country at the time of the end of the war, became the state. If we look at the map of Europe at the end of the 17th century, we will see that Catholics and Protestants are mostly "settled" in different states and administrative entities. Italy, Spain - Catholic, England, Denmark, northern countries - Protestant. Germany then was not united, the principalities that were part of it were also divided, Bavaria was Catholic, for example, Saxony and Prussia were Protestant. What happened, as I conditionally call it, "confessional sorting." It gave grounds for the ideology of liberalism, everyone calmed down, the contradictions ceased to have a deep religious and cultural character. The ruling strata and the lower strata now had one faith, a core arose around which cooperation was built. No, of course, there were many contradictions, but there was also a strong foundation that made it possible to keep a balance in society.

As I said, when everything was over for them (1648), we had just begun (1654). 50 years of massacre, as fierce as in Europe, the Middle Ages is the Middle Ages. Supporters of Patriarch Nikon, state power in the person of Alexei Mikhailovich and his children - and those who did not accept Nikon's "novelties", who remained adherents of the old ancient Russian rite. It was a very serious fight, at the top it quickly ended with the fact that everyone who did not accept the reforms of Patriarch Nikon was squeezed out - if you did not accept the reforms, you have nothing to do in the administrative vertical at any level. It was impossible to say: "I am for the old faith, appoint me governor." It couldn't be! And everyone was squeezed out of the church, especially the highest bishops, everyone rather quickly accepted Nikon's innovations, literally a few refused, such as, for example, Bishop Pavel Kolomensky. Everything was reconciled only under Peter I, who completed the rebuilding of the state, begun by Alexei Mikhailovich. But I compare with how this story ended in the West - completely different. No confessional sorting has happened, where are the two Russias? There, Protestants and Catholics dispersed to their own confessional states, and the head of each entity (king, duke, whoever) supported the common faith. In our country, the Nikonian faith has been established, but in fact, those who did not accept it have not gone anywhere: two Russias, Old Believers and Nikonians, have not been formed, this is the main difference from the West.

- With this feature connected, probably, and talk about a special path of Russia.

Here, in my opinion, is the root of everything that has been talked about for 200 years: some strange country, some kind of specificity, a special way. No, there is no special way. There is only one specificity - confessional sorting did not occur and this left its mark on everything. Speaking quite primitively, it's like two companies fighting on the street, and one completely beat the other, but everyone had to live together in the same house. Will it affect their relationship? They still hate each other. And some kind of reluctance, characteristic of everything Russian, stems from the socio-psychological atmosphere that has developed after the religious schism. In Europe, however, everyone came out of the schism surrounded by like-minded people, there was no contact with others, strangers, in everyday life. This is the basis for some kind of tolerance, which has grown into Western liberalism. What kind of liberalism can there be in Russia? In such a situation, Russia began to live. Peter I did one important thing - when he brought the "repair" work to create an empire, he decided to simply "cover over" this issue, without understanding it, since the situation was incomprehensible.

Peter did not like the Old Believers and refused to delve into the problem - however, he used the Old Believers sensibly, like, for example, the Demidovs. The emperor did this: we are conducting a new census ( revision tales), no longer a household, but a poll tax, and everyone who declares himself an adherent of the old faith pays a double poll tax. And who will say such a thing? The bloody religious massacre ended quite recently, and many still remember it. A huge number of Old Believers simply ignored this, 2% of the population signed up, the rest recognized themselves as Orthodox so as not to “shine”. In addition, there was a large migration under Peter I, under Anna Ioannovna, who sent an army to return the fled. Catherine II, liberal and enlightened, decided to approach this problem differently: in 1782 she abolished the double tax and stopped persecution. The problem seemed to be gone, but in fact it was only powdered, “smeared over”. There was a huge layer of people who did not accept anything that we call imperial "Russia" - no way of life, no religion, no culture. This was never realized by the ruling elites. True, Paul I tried to reconcile everyone in the same faith (preservation of the old rites while submitting to the Synod). But many people did not react to the actions of the authorities, and the authorities believed that everything would resolve itself. This situation persisted until the middle of the 19th century, when Nicholas I finally decided to find out what was happening in matters of faith, what was the depth of old belief among the people. This was one time when the authorities tried to explore the popular layers. And it turned out that the number of Old Believers declared by various commissions should be increased at least 10-11 times, and according to the documents, they were all Orthodox. Here is positivism for you - according to the documents, there is nothing to talk about, there is no problem, and if you dig deeper, then this is all you need to talk about!

Nicholas I began to study the problem because when Catherine II declared freedom of entrepreneurship in the spirit of liberalism, a huge mass of Old Believers, ousted from the administrative vertical and did not own land (ownership of land was associated with service), went into trade and manufactories, into the industrial sector. The nobility was reluctant to do this. And the schismatics could receive from the industrial sector the means of subsistence and prove themselves. And therefore, the class of merchants that began to take shape under Catherine consisted of ¾ of schismatics. Nobles and foreigners, if they were engaged in anything, were only export-import of luxury. The domestic market was mastered by the Old Believers. But what frightened Nikolai was that they mastered him in a specific way. Catherine and Alexander thought that normal capitalism was developing, but there was not even a trace of it. Merchants developed thanks to communal money, which accumulated spiritual schismatic centers (the most famous are the Rogozhskoye and Preobrazhenskoye Old Believer cemeteries). New enterprises were based on people's money, the poorest hired worker could suddenly become the owner of a thousandth capital and a merchant of guilds, because fellow believers put him in this business for his ingenuity and resourcefulness. And if the council decided that the case was being conducted poorly, they could transfer it to another. This lay outside the normal legal field. And now it reached such proportions that Nicholas I was frightened, he really did not like the European socialists, Saint-Simon, Fourier and followers, and decided that socialist ideas had penetrated into Russia. But it quickly became clear that there were no ideas, and something else was coming from below. Nikolai quickly dispersed this entire Old Believer economy.

- And what was your goal when you were preparing this study and folding the book?

I had to bring everything to the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, to 1917. The goal was one - to remove all the Leninist-Stalinist layers: the consciousness of the proletariat, the formation of the vanguard party, the rehearsal of 1905, the victory in 1917, and so on. Lenin had nothing to do with the processes taking place in Russia, the party (or rather, a number of circles) was financed by the Moscow merchants. This is very disliked by the current Rogozhsky Old Believers.

- And what exactly causes their dissatisfaction?

They have a completely different logic. I wanted to find out why 1917 happened, half of the book I have is just about twenty years before the revolution. Until the end of the 19th century, the Moscow merchant elite did not want to hear about any revolutions, about any Herzen, Ogarev, Bakunin ... "Bell" - burn. The task of the merchants is quite clear - to fit into the elite. Alexander II seemed to be walking towards me, but he kept his distance: you don’t come close to me again, but Alexander III was a completely different person. He was under the influence of the "Russian party" (Aksakov, Katkov, Meshchersky, Pobedonostsev), and he was set up for Russophilism, so he took steps towards rapprochement. Here the Old Believer merchants realized that their hour had come. The bureaucracy went to meet them, as the emperor favored, things started to turn serious. They should have a controlling stake in the economy! Katkov, Aksakov and others expressed their political interests. The only exception was Pobedonostsev, who was sick of this audience, since he was the chief procurator of the Holy Synod. All these Slavophile figures were paid by the merchants, although they themselves were not poor people, but there was a huge flow of money! .. The entire domestic market of Russia is serviced and concentrated in Moscow. Suddenly, Alexander III died, the Minister of Finance Vyshnegradsky, their favorite, left, he adored the Moscow group, Katkov, Aksakov, and they lobbied him. Instead, Witte came - at the beginning of his state way absolute black man. Witte's uncle, who raised him, was an extreme nationalist and wrote patriotic manifestos. But Witte changed, made a sharp turn away from the "Russian party" and became best friend Petersburg banks, sworn enemies of the Moscow merchants. He staked on foreign capital, he saw that Russia is poor, GDP growth rates, as they say now, are weak, they need to be increased, and who will move this? Only foreign capital - there is a lot of it, there is knowledge and technology. Our merchants are asking themselves the question: what about us, are we Russian people? Witte answered them: you are good guys, but there is no time to wait until something efficient comes out of you. And this was a tragedy for the merchants. Foreign capital poured in, a southern industrial region began to be created in Ukraine. All capital went through St. Petersburg banks, they were the operators of the economy. The merchants realized that if nothing is done, in 20 years they will remain miserable minority shareholders. And they began to act.

- So the history of our revolutionary movement began?

Certainly. All the circles that were previously of no interest to anyone - Socialist-Revolutionary, Social-Democratic, Liberal - are turning into parties. The Moscow merchants financed a huge, expensive cultural and educational project: the Moscow Art Theater, the Tretyakov Gallery, Mamontov's private opera, Sytin's and Sabashnikov's publishing houses... This project made liberalism fashionable in society. Previously, only the upper strata, Speransky, for example, were engaged in it, and it was a narrow stratum in the elite, but now liberalism has become public. The meaning of the actions of the merchants was this: if you are doing this to us, then we need to limit the tsar and the ruling bureaucracy with a constitution and parliament in order to protect ourselves from the political zigzags of the state. There must be a Duma, all freedoms must be fixed not by the expression of the will of the emperor, but by legislative means. The liberal-social model begins to be propagated, the entire Slavophil loyal public is forgotten, and to late XIX century it becomes fashionable to encourage revolutionary liberal circles, newspapers. The Moscow Art Theater "spins" Gorky, orders him all these "At the Bottom" and other plays. And everything had to be filled with a democratic, liberal, anti-autocratic spirit.

- You say that in your book you wanted to remove the Leninist-Stalinist layers. Did it work? And did you have any less important tasks?

It was important to really remove the layers. And those who read the book told me that the Leninist-Stalinist concept was bursting at the seams, because it was clear not just who was the driving force, but most importantly, why. It is not enough to say that everything was driven by the Moscow industrialists, but why did they do this, why? This was dictated by pragmatic interests, and not by any other. The entire Moscow industrial group grew up on the roots of the Old Believers. By the beginning of the 20th century, the picture was already very variegated - someone went to the Old Believer spiritual centers, someone was a fellow believer, someone did not go at all, like Konovalov. But they all came out of there, but most importantly, they were united by common economic interests, the struggle against the St. Petersburg banks.

The next book, which Olma-Media is going to publish, will be called "St. Petersburg - Moscow: the fight for Russia." In it, I will show in detail how the struggle went on in the last twenty pre-revolutionary years, including the period of the Provisional Government. After all, February 1917 is the triumph of the Moscow merchants, they swept away the ruling bureaucracy, all these Konovalovs, Ryabushinskys, Guchkovs, the Cadets who were with them. But the Petersburg bankers, recovering from their confusion, carried out what we know as the "Kornilov conspiracy."

To Stalin, yes. There we are no longer talking directly about the split, but about the environment from which we came out. characters Soviet pre-war period, this is very important. Naturally, the members of the CPSU (b) were not practicing Old Believers or Orthodox - and could not be. But this does not mean that they forgot where they grew up and changed mentally. As you were formed in your youth, so you will be. And this dispute - not directly between Nikonians and Old Believers, but between people from different confessional strata - continued during the years of Soviet power. This is a rather unusual look, it shocks many. But these factors played a big role: none of the Bolsheviks who came out of the depths of the people read Marx, returning to the above. What kind of Marxists were they? They were not even Leninists. They had their own vision of life, they understood life in their own way. You can say - the Soviet project was pregnant Russian empire in economic and social terms. Here, he broke through.

- What domestic and foreign historians do you consider to be your like-minded people?

There is a very famous American professor Gregory Freese, we meet every year during his visits to Moscow and discuss these topics. He is considered in the West the greatest specialist in the history of religion. When I told him about my work five years ago, he treated it with great interest. And he is a supporter of my approach, I am very pleased, and he suggested a lot of sources for me to work with. And the fact that he undertook to write a review of the book sets me up for an optimistic mood. In Russia there is a very strong historian, the most famous and quoted in the West, Mironov Boris Nikolaevich from St. Petersburg. His most popular two-volume "Social History of Russia" has been translated into many languages, and I often refer to it. And when I am in St. Petersburg, I communicate with Mironov, he has a historical instinct and also supports me, he believes that this topic should be continued.

- Are feedback on your work important to you?

I think this is very important, and not only for me. People like Gregory Freese, strong true scientists who have spent their whole lives on this, know our history well and without prejudice, objectivity and reliability are not an empty phrase for them. And their reaction to some kind of work is very important as a guideline in order to move on. Science cannot be closed within national boundaries, this is understandable for natural sciences, but it also applies to history. I do not make a difference between local and foreign estimates, we work with the same sources.

- Can you say that you write books primarily for yourself?

Here is the first one I wrote for myself. I wrote "The Facets of the Russian Schism" without pragmatic goals, as it happens - they write a book in order to defend a doctoral thesis. It was the same with “Khrushchev's thaw”, this is a published doctoral dissertation, slightly expanded. And with the split there was one goal - to try to sort out this matter. And the fact that I received this award is completely unexpected.

- And who nominated you for it?

He was nominated as an employee of the Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration. What was important for me was that the work was noted and voted for by people whom I did not know before: N.K. Svanidze, D.B. Zimin and others. It is impossible to imagine that the Academy of Sciences will elect a corresponding member or an academician without knowing you, but only after getting acquainted with your books - it is impossible. This "temple of science" is a cabal. Only the middle link in the institutes is engaged in science there, and the leadership, represented by respectable academicians, wraps up their affairs, which are far from science. They will not read anything if there is no specific, tangible interest - they do not need it in principle. The reaction to the book came from completely different people, from those who are really interested in the increment of knowledge.

- At one time you were quite actively involved in political activities.

Yes, I would not say.

- Since 1993, you ran for the State Duma, then you were an assistant to Kasyanov, the Prime Minister, and in 2003-2004 - Deputy Minister of Education.

Lost years, as I call this period.

- Was it your initiative to go "to power", or, rather, did the circumstances develop?

Immediately after defending my doctorate, I ended up at the Center for Strategic Research, which was headed by German Gref, and then there was a very strong team assembled there. And very many from there went on the state path. This flow brought me to the civil service.

- Now you continue to be engaged in political activity?

No, absolutely none. In 2007, I set myself the goal of making a book about the split, at first I worked slowly, then, when I saw that it was starting to work out, more intensively. Often traveled to St. Petersburg to the Russian State Historical Archive, the largest archive of the country, documents of Imperial Russia.

- Did your work in the archives help you? And how would you characterize the current state of the Russian archives?

The archives helped, it's hard without them. So I was going to go to the RGIA in 2009, when the book was already starting to work out, and I was thinking: maybe not to go? And then I was there 25 times, and if I hadn’t gone, I wouldn’t have achieved the quality that I wanted to achieve from the book. I like archives. After all, the RGIA moved to a new building, but I did not find the old building of the Senate-Synod, the one on Senate Square. The new building is completely modern, the people working there are very professional. They do not just store documents, they work with them (for such salaries), they are known. It is very important for a researcher to be guided by someone. So I have a very good opinion about archives, and about libraries too, for example, Historical is my favorite.

- Surely, on your professional path there are difficulties, tell us about them.

Difficulty not difficulty... I was told by readers (not professional historians) that the book is a bit complicated. And we argued with Boris Nikolaevich Mironov from St. Petersburg on this topic. He says that I write "simple". And I think that the reader should be clear, the material needs to be adapted. People cannot know everything, out of a large number of names, no one knows half, and this is normal. Not all are historians. Therefore, I try to make a high-quality, but simple text addressed to a wide range of readers. This is the most important thing for historical science. And when they publish books that no one but 20 people will read: why?

- That is, you also set educational goals for yourself?

And this is inevitable. I believe that historical research and enlightenment are inseparable things. Otherwise it is impossible. I understand that it is difficult to promote mathematical formulas from the same Ekho Moskvy, but history is a social science, for society in the broad sense of the word.

- What are your future plans? You say that A new book ends with the time of Stalin, and then? ..

I think that next year a study should be done on the St. Petersburg period for the last twenty years before the revolution. We need to pull out materials about the first Russian constitution, who made it. There is a forgotten name there - Dmitry Solsky, the patriarch of Russian liberalism. Everyone knows Witte, they know Kokovtsov, the Minister of Finance. And where did they come from? We said that Witte was a member of the Black Hundreds, but became a liberal - this is the merit of Solsky. And Kokovtsov was his pupil, whom he raised to the position of Minister of Finance, which Kokovtsov recalled with gratitude all his life, even in exile. Solsky is a favorite of Alexander II, the one who nurtured the idea of ​​adopting a Russian constitution. He fulfilled his dream, and the first constitution of 1906 was created under his direct supervision.

- Will it be a separate book about Solsky?

It will be visible from the material. He had many associates, after all, not only Stolypin was there. Stolypin is the strongest personality, but he did not develop anything, it was not his task. The specific policy was developed by the highest layer of the bureaucracy under the leadership of the same Solsky. Ideas were born there. And Stolypin, as a powerful and energetic figure, was called upon to bring it to life. These clarifying points greatly enrich the picture. And then we have Witte and Stolypin, and then who? And there are still many people who now no one remembers. And they were not reactionaries, how can a reactionary draft a constitution?

Finish what I want. And get rid of some peremptory. I try to avoid it, we must strive so that everything does not look like some person has appeared who speaks the truth. On the contrary, I believe that my work should be the first step for further research, to search for evidence (and something, perhaps, will not be confirmed). This is an invitation to further conversation.

See also: