I often began to face heated debates about what kind of political regime, form of government or social structure would be best for our state??? In this regard, I will briefly give real examples and facts regarding the achievements of our country at different times and under different political realities.

Today we cannot afford any experiments in political structure, because there were enough of those in our history and far from always they benefited our people. Moreover, realizing our peculiarities, everything never turns out as planned and planned. Further, I will add a little to my position, but I ask you to make conclusions and additions in the comments on the topic and polls ... In the preface, I would like to note - I am convinced that our people would have achieved a much better existence under any political system, do not be so many external enemies, wars and destruction, as well as in a milder climate. We have been wiped off the face of the earth more times than anyone else in history. If other states simply captured in wars (preserving the population and infrastructure), then it was very difficult to conquer our land in this way. But we will talk about this in more detail in my other article. So, let's start with the very first and longest form of government in our state - the Monarchy. In itself, the birth of absolute monarchy in our country is associated with the beginning of the reign of Peter the Great (although in our country, it took place in various manifestations much earlier). I also consider it important to note that initially the principle of Supreme Power was laid down in the belief in the fulfillment by the monarch of the Will of God, from which the monarch was to gain his power. And the future leaders of the state were brought up and trained from early childhood, with the only meaning of life - serving for the benefit of the Russian state. Therefore, corruption, on their part, or actions deliberately against the interests of the country, were excluded. So, along with the absolute monarchy, the Greatness of the Russian Empire was born, our state had a strong fleet, a new-style army, victories in wars (for example, the Battle of Poltava). As a result, the Russian multinational empire received a “proud influence” on the entire continent so that not a single peace treaty or war began without the knowledge of Russia ... At the peak of the development of the Russian Empire (1909-1913), our country: almost 1.5 times increased the volume production. Moreover, reflecting the ongoing process of industrialization of the country, heavy industry in terms of growth rates noticeably exceeded light industry (174.5% against 137.7%). In terms of total industrial production, Russia occupied 5-6th place in the world, almost equaling France and surpassing it in a number of important indicators of heavy industry. The production of agricultural products, primarily cereals and potatoes, as well as a number of industrial crops: cotton, sugar beet, tobacco. The number of livestock increased in absolute terms, although per capita numbers continued to decline steadily. The formation of modern infrastructure continued - means of communication, means of communication, credit system. The Russian ruble was considered one of the hard convertible currencies, its gold backing was one of the strongest in Europe. Finally, in the field of culture, the government made great efforts to overcome a serious illness. Russian society- low literacy rate: spending by ministry public education increased almost 5 times since 1900, amounting to 14.6% of budget expenditures in 1913. The pace of economic and cultural development of the country, structural changes in the national economy seemed very impressive. So, for example, E. Teri, who, on the instructions of his government, got acquainted with the state of the Russian economy. He concluded in the book "Russia in 1914. Economic Review", which read: "... The economic and financial situation in Russia at the moment is excellent, ... it depends on the government to make it even better." Moreover, he warned: “If things go on for the majority of European peoples in the same way between 1912 and 1950 as they did between 1900 and 1912, then by the middle of this century Russia will dominate Europe both politically and economically and financially

The next form of government that took place in our country is Republican, under the basis of which lay (as is often assumed) Socialism. Everyone (in their own way) knows perfectly well what he was like, holding out for 70 years. Propaganda had great power, and the masses of the population, at different times, sacredly believed in it. Ideas of "freedom, equality, brotherhood", etc. and so on. accounted for ordinary people a lot to taste. At various times in the Soviet Union, there were terrible events (repressions, wars) and industrial and agricultural achievements (some of the five-year plans, the development of virgin lands), foreign policy crises (the Caribbean crisis), radical decisions (for example, the fight against alcohol or perestroika) . The system of government was one-party, and all decisions, as a rule, were taken by voting - unanimously. For some time, part of the population believed that the party was always right. The leaders in the party (since the time of I.V. Stalin) were the chairmen of the Central Committee of the CPSU, who came to power as a result of a tough struggle and intrigues against political competitors. The very formation of this social system began with bloody terrorist attacks, red terror, revolution, civil war. Later, the measures in power ceased to be so radical. And after the war, many people received, if not rich, but happy lives, which later inspired a lot of nostalgia. The main advantage of that time was the value of the working class and some social equality.
Summing up, I would like to note and repeat a little that on December 26, 1991 Soviet Union ceased to exist. The first country in the world that became great, relying not on the elite, but on the working people. In a matter of decades, the USSR surpassed the countries of one and a half centuries of capitalism in many ways - the triumph of science and production was accompanied by brilliant achievements in healthcare, culture and sports.
If you study the question in detail, then you can write voluminous books about the successes of any of the branches of Soviet industry, science and technology. I will simply name the areas of achievement, and if you do not remember specific events, you can familiarize yourself with them in open sources in more detail. So, these are: atomic energy, space, military equipment, computers, mobile communications, civil Aviation, navy, art, cinema photographer and others...

Vladimir Karpets

Once again about social-monarchism

Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin, head of the Synodal Department for Relations between the Church and Society, made an important statement: Russia needs a political system that combines elements of rigid centralized power and a welfare state. And further: "Powerfulness, justice and solidarity are the three values ​​on the basis of which we need to build a system that would unite the monarchy and socialism."

Personally, the author of these lines does not like the expression "combining elements" very much. In fact, it is necessary - fully, self- and sovereignly - both. But in essence, everything is correct.
We know that historically in Russia - and not practically everywhere - the very ideas of monarchy and socialism are in opposition, or rather, opposition. However, inside it there is a "systemic error": a monarchy is a type of state and, accordingly, everything connected with it belongs to the political field, and socialism is a category primarily socio-economic. Strictly speaking, these are things located in different planes, and they cannot be strictly correlated with each other, nor be rigidly opposed to each other. However, in the history of Russia, they opposed, and this confrontation led to disastrous consequences. Why?
The socialism of the 19th century was associated with the so-called "Enlightenment" and the anti-traditional, anti-monarchist and anti-church revolutions generated by it, acted as an external means of implementing the Gnostic doctrines of the "dissolution" of the world, the very "creation" of which was considered by the young Marx as the beginning of "alienation" (denying an important substantive side of these doctrines is impossible). Such socialism - until now for many of its researchers, including the outstanding Russian mathematician and historian I.R. Shafarevich (in the book "Socialism as a Phenomenon of World History") looks like the only one.

Indeed, in 1917 the monarchy collapsed and was replaced by a godless atheistic socialism, which, nevertheless, gradually - starting from the end of the 30s - began to acquire some traditional Russian features. But socialism also collapsed - along with the territorial integrity of Russia. We experienced the catastrophe of the crash twice in one century. This had both internal and external reasons.

However, the fact that socialism itself is ambiguous and double-edged was realized earlier than others by the great thinker and political seer Konstantin Nikolayevich Leontiev. "If socialism - not as a nihilistic rebellion and delusions of all denial, but as a legitimate organization of labor and capital, as a new corporate forced enslavement of human societies, has a future, then in Russia to create this new order that does not harm either the Church or higher civilization, is not no one can, except the Monarchist government," he predicted back in the 80s of the XIX century.
K.N. Leontiev considered the fate of socialism similar to the fate of historical Christianity: "My feeling prophesies to me that the Slavic Orthodox king, - he wrote, - will someday take over the socialist movement (thus, Constantine of Byzantium took over the religious movement), and with the blessing of the Church will establish socialist form life in place of the bourgeois-liberal. And this socialism will be a new and severe threefold slavery: to the communities, the Church and the Tsar.

It is this system that turns out to be the apostolic “restraint” from the arrival of the “lawless” Antichrist ((2 Thess. 2, 1-4, 6-8), in today's reading - the “new world order” and its alleged leader.

At the same time, the problem of “Russian socialism” or “Orthodox socialism” cannot be considered at all within the framework of well-known political, ideological and state studies schemes. However, the so-called "Fourth Political Theory" (hereinafter - 4PT), put forward simultaneously and in mutual close cooperation by two outstanding thinkers of our time, the Frenchman Alain de Benoist and the Russian Alexander Dugin, turns out to be quite appropriate here. We can find a detailed presentation of their work in the book by Professor A.G. Dugin "The Fourth Way" (M., "Academic Project", 2014) The very concept of 4PT was put forward in view of the complete exhaustion of the political ideas of the Modern era - liberalism, communism and fascism (Nazism), based on the categories of linear time and progress, which are a manifestation of the "Western logos".

Alexander Dugin, relying on the philosophy of Martin Heidegger, both in the dilogy dedicated to this thinker (“Martin Heidegger: Philosophy of a Different Beginning”, M, 2010, “Martin Heidegger: the Possibility of Russian Philosophy”, M, 2011), and in The Fourth Way ” shows that the “idea of ​​progress” associated with the “forgetfulness of Being” was embedded in Western thinking long before the birth of Christ and is immanently present already in Plato, Socrates and even Heraclitus. According to Heidegger, we are talking about the “forgetfulness of Being” (Seyn), the substitution of “Being” for it as “the highest being” (Sein) and, inevitably, being as such (Seinde).

The main consequence of "forgetting Being" in politics is liberalism, the main subject of which is the individual (mind). The second political theory - Marxism - with "classocentrism" - and the third (fascism and National Socialism), putting the nation (also a product of the liberal-bourgeois revolutions of the 17th-18th centuries) or the state at the forefront - were only unsuccessful attempts to overcome liberalism. Their "secondary" "dependence" led to their collapse. Today, liberalism triumphs, while destroying itself in the Postmodern.

None of the three political subjects of Modernity - neither an individual (uum), nor a class, nor a nation - can be a subject of 4PT, as well as their mechanical combinations. But, since at the heart of the Modern is still liberalism, the myth of the individual must be overcome first of all. But it can be overcome not by collectivism (as in communism or fascism), but only by turning to "transcendent man."

What is the subject of 4PT? The main thing, according to Dugin, is just "getting away from the dualism of subject and object." He refers to the concept of Dasein (“Behold-Being”), the seat of Being in Existence, “judgment about Being”, “being-to-death”. But Dugin goes further. If the "Western logos" is not the only one, then the "Dazains" (he deliberately writes in Russian) are many. Dugin says: “Thus it is possible to proclaim the royal Revolution of space. This means that the Russian place (Russia) must switch the mode of existence - from non-authentic to authentic. Only this can enable the King to manifest. The task is not to call the King, not to elect him, not to create him, and even more so not to become a “king” himself, but to give the King the opportunity to be, to appear, to reveal himself ... He does not need this, we need it - to have a King "

Social-monarchism can be considered a Russian (specifically Russian) reading of 4PT as a more general concept. At the same time, the subject of the theory of social monarchism (within the framework of 4PT) thus turns out to be the “ontological couple” Tsar-People (this is the “Russian dasein”) Perhaps, in the best way this is "identified" by Marina Tsvetaeva:

It's as simple as blood and sweat:
Tsar to the people, Tsar to the people.
This is clear as the secret of two:
Two are side by side, and the third is the Spirit.

Under the people, of course, of course, is not the actual majority, but the totality of all the dead, the living and the unborn. The king, on the other hand, was sent from above, and not chosen, let alone hired for money. In this, among other things, there is a deep kinship between the Kingdom and the sacrament of marriage.

And here, of course, first of all, one should name the famous icon of the 16th century “The Militant Church” from the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. On it, at the head of the Militant Church, striking the "ancient serpent" and laboring against him, is depicted not a bishop, not a metropolitan and not a patriarch, but the Tsar on a horse ("equestrian").

The Russian Tsar was originally the Tsar White and Red. In itself, this symbolism underlies the symbolism of death and Resurrection, coinciding with the symbolism of the Kingdom of Heaven and the earthly kingdom as its image. On Great Saturday - the day of Jesus Christ's descent into hell - during the liturgy, the priests change the black Lenten vestments for white ones, and on Holy Pascha morning - white ones for red ones. The ancient Aryans White color- the color of the priestly varna, red - the royal military, black - the slave, dependent state.

The White King and the Red King are one and the same. As we will see later, this is the metaphysical basis of the Fourth Political Theory for the Russians, the Russian world, Russia as a state. Metaphysical basis of social-monarchism.

In old-timer, pre-Petrine and pre-schismatic Rus', the symbolism of black, white and red permeated state life in its very foundations. The "black" state - taxable or bound by vows - black clergy, white settlements - on the contrary, free .. But black - red (Red Sea). “Black Az and Chermena,” says the Bride in the Church Slavonic translation of the Song of Songs. And the White Tsar was originally “the tsar is not a tributary”, an autocrat, a sovereign, identical to the Russian Tsar, that is, the Red Tsar, blood. Hence the red royal robes, red cloak, red banners and banners of the Rurikovich, in addition to the fact that the red color of the robes - purple, porphyry - was inherited by the Rurikovichs, and then the Romanovs as a privilege of the Orthodox Tsars to commemorate the Resurrection of Christ.

“Give blood and receive the Spirit,” said the ancient Fathers of the Church (St. Peter of Damascus, Rev. Abba Longini and others).
The blood is twofold. It consists of two main components - red cells and white cells. White and red symbolism accompanies the entire history of the human race.
The beginning of the Russian unrest of the 20th century was the destruction of the Tsar's power as the center of one blood and one spirit - white and red. "White" and "Red" went to each other. This is identical to the separation of white and red bodies in savage medical experience.

But in fact, the “October Revolution” was a “black” component of the hermetic formula. Absolutely adequate to “black is blacker than black mob” were not the Whites and not the Reds, and not the Bolsheviks, but the anarchists. Anarchy is the mother (literally) of order. She is the antecedent, Cheese Mother Earth. Having hidden the Tsar in herself, she is called upon to restore him.

Sinister and desert graveyard,
Where the royal bars are buried

(Nikola Klyuev)

Russia is one and indivisible not only in space but also in time. Proceeding from this, developing the foundations of social monarchism as the Fourth political theory for Russia, we must talk about the complete and unconditional continuity of all historical eras, especially the last three - Moscow, "Romanov" and Soviet - over and in spite of all the unrest. Muscovite Rus' contains the “formula” of the Orthodox Kingdom, the Russian Empire gives legal succession (rejected in February 1917), above all the fundamentally unshakable laws of succession to the throne, the Soviet Union is an invaluable social, organizational and military experience, the rejection of which is so painfully experienced today. In this sense, only social-monarchism can become the outcome and result of the "red-white" struggle.

The monarchical type of the state is the only one in which the category manifests itself not of time, but of “eon” or “moving eternity” (Vl. Lossky's definition). In the language of Orthodoxy, it looks like this: “God, in the image of His heavenly unity of command, established a king on earth; in the image of His omnipotence, an autocratic king; in the image of His imperishable kingdom, lasting from age to age, a hereditary king” (Metropolitan Philaret Moscow). Through dynastic succession, the people appear in history as a trinity of people who have gone into eternity, who live on earth and who have not yet come to it. A dynasty is one and the same monarch, changing names and appearances only because a person on earth is mortal. Lev Tikhomirov wrote: “Through the dynasty, the sole bearer of the supreme truth becomes, as it were, immortal, living forever with the nation. The sovereign simultaneously possesses all the power of this ideal, and he himself is completely subordinate to it ”(“ Monarchic statehood ”)

The oath to the Tsar is not an oath personally to Ivan, Alexy, Nikola, George, etc. - This is an oath to Rod. The king is precisely one (hence the “monarchy”), the royal son is himself. Monarchy is noumenal, not phenomenal. When there is no family, no one's own dead and one's longed-for future, there can be no monarchy.

At the same time, for the Orthodox Kingdom, the Third Rome, the Tsar (Emperor) is 1) the “bishop of the external affairs of the Church”, her guardian from heresies and schisms, as the only White (free) Tsar in the world who has the legal obligation to convene Ecumenical Councils. 2) Supreme Legislator, Ruler and Judge. In the secular aspect, it is even wider.

Power by its nature is one and monadic: it either exists or it does not. Aristotle was the first to formulate this, having created the doctrine of three “correct” types of power - monarchy, aristocracy and polity (democracy) - and three distorted ones - tyranny, oligarchy and democracy (ochlocracy). It is correct to speak not about the "form", but about the "type of government". "Separation of powers" is one of the main components of the "great lie of our time." L.A. Tikhomirov in "Monarchic statehood" speaks of the unity and indivisibility of the Supreme Power and the fundamental diversity of "administrative powers" of both national and local significance.

On the other hand, socialism, as already mentioned above, is initially dual. In fact, one can speak of "two socialisms". We are not interested in the speculative “enlightenment” (in particular, Marxist), not the Manichaean “desire to death”, studied in the well-known book already mentioned by Academician I.R. Shafarevich, but in Russian radical, root socialism, the origins of which are in the and class (socially) - a representative state XV-XVII with a legally unlimited Monarchy, deliberative "Councils of the whole earth" (Zemsky Sobors) and broad local self-government, Russian socialism - civilizational, not formational - and is - Autocratic monarchy.

The Moscow kingdom was the so-called. "tax state" (in the words of V.O. Klyuchevsky), or "fortress state", and the word "fortress" denoted primarily a nationwide mutual responsibility - exactly the same as it was inside peasant community. The specific princes, boyars, and then the nobles served the Sovereign, shed their blood, and under these conditions, the peasants gradually attached themselves to the land, fed and armed those who defended the peasants themselves in the war. All Moscow people were "sovereign people", there was no personal dependence between them, just as there was no "baptized property", which appeared only after the Decree of 1762 on "noble liberty", which instantly turned the "fortress" into "serfdom" (this is an ugly imitation of European feudalism led to the equally ugly "Russian capitalism" of the late 19th and early 20th centuries).
The Muscovite state, as a “tax power” state, was to the same extent a class-representative state: Zemsky Sobors, as deliberative bodies under the Supreme Power, convened on a class-land (today we would say “social-territorial”) basis, were a living and organic form connection of power with the "land", which, no doubt, would have developed into a political form that would have been fully alternative to Western parliamentarism with its principles of a formal majority and the dictatorship of parties, if its development had not been interrupted by the church schism of the 17th century (after which the Councils themselves ceased to be convened ), and then by the Decree of 1762. The slogan "The Tsar and the Soviets", put forward in the 30s of the twentieth century by the "Young Russians" A.L. Kazem-bek (1902 - 1977) was absolutely consistent and organic

Here we begin to talk not about the past (conditionally), but about the present and the future.

Of course, if we consider modern Russia as being in a transition period (a republic in form, but in fact a classic “Roman principate” with a testamentary transfer of power in content), then changes in the state structure should be carried out non-violently, peacefully and within the framework of the mechanisms provided for by the current Constitution, and it is desirable to initiate them by the Head of State himself.

Recall once again: the USSR? originally conceived as a left-globalist project of transition to a world government under a usurped “red shell”, after the “counter-revolution of 1937-38. years began to acquire some (by no means all) of the features of historical, even pre-Petersburg Russia as a "tax state", although without a Tsar and formally outside of Orthodoxy. And after the recurrent bourgeois revolution of 1991 (the continuation of the February Revolution), it just turned out that the historical Russian monarchy and historical Russian socialism have the same enemy - the forces of Antichrist, that is, the same “world government” and capital. It was this that opened - unexpectedly for many - a common future, the path of a single political praxis for the supporters of the Russian Orthodox monarchy and Russian socialism, that is, just "all Rus'".

At the same time, it turns out that it is Muscovite Rus' that is the era of the highest Russian “nativeness”, our “very self” (A.F. Losev). In the XV - the middle of the XVII centuries. a state system was formed, which still remains a hidden "matrix" of Russian statehood. The state structure of the Moscow Kingdom was, is and will remain “matrix” for Russia, although it inevitably beckons “signs and heads” (M. Voloshin) Its final “emergence” is inevitable.

Split mid-seventeenth V. divided the people into two parts, predetermined the further imposition of European forms (including, after 1762, pseudo-feudal serfdom). Ultimately, the “rejection of Moscow” led already in Soviet times to a new emergence of “a godless and soulless universal serf state, organizationally very close to the experience of ancient Moscow, only with a reverse spiritual sign” (P.B. Struve), including how "zemshchina" (Soviets), and "oprichnina" (party). In the 70s and 80s of the 20th century, the position of the General Secretary was not enshrined in legislation in the same way as the Moscow Tsar, and the ratio of the CPSU and the Soviets reproduced the “oprichnina” model.

The discarding of the communist "shell", unfortunately, did not lead to the revival of organic life (it was almost killed in the 1920s), but to a new "Euro-American reception" and, as a result, to a crumbling statehood, capable of being held only by police order, as well as to the discrepancy between "law" and "concepts". And the only viable option today is the possibility of "returning the old Moscow", of course, taking into account all the realities and new technologies. In particular, the political ideas of Leontiev, Tikhomirov, Kazem-bek should be studied anew.

The social nature of the monarchical state, first of all, is that not political (i.e., divided by ideologies) parties participate in legislative activity, but social strata (they used to be called estates), professional associations, labor collectives, as well as territorial entities (lands) . “To the supreme power - the unlimited power of government - to the earth - the unlimited power of opinion” (still a Slavophile formula)

The supreme power is not legally limited. However, the Sovereign - "the son of the church", brings repentance and accepts the sacraments of the church. The Church itself is returning to strict canonical practice, to the Pilots. However, in the future Kingdom there should be no compulsion to believe. Orthodox Christianity (of the old, Russian, and new, Greek-Russian, rite) is not a state, but a state-forming confession. No "certificates about the confession" and all that ruined the former "symphony". Clericalism, that is, the desire of the clergy to lead the state, must also be excluded. People turn to faith by looking at the King, the Queen and their children. The supreme power also protects Islam, Buddhism and other traditional religions of the indigenous peoples of Russia, local customs. From the practice of the “secular state”, free religious education is preserved at the request of the family, the absence of a “religious search” when applying for a job, and non-interference in private life. However, propaganda of atheism, public blasphemy and blasphemy are not allowed.

Court - Royal (princely) law. The Court is adversarial, but the State should not be blamed. The king and the judges appointed by him are arbitrators both over the accusation and over the defense. The imputation of the prosecution to the Prosecutor's Office (that is, the deliberate placing of the State in the accusatory position) is a huge and difficult to correct mistake of the judicial reform of 1864, inherited later. The prosecutor's office (which is responsible for overseeing the observance of laws and the fight against corruption) should be relieved of the function of public prosecution. Prosecution and defense are carried out within the framework of one estate (labor association) of lawyers as part of the performance of professional duties. Professional judges are appointed by the Supreme Authority, on behalf of which the verdict is pronounced and which is the highest court of appeal.

Legislation is the business of the Supreme Power itself. The highest representative bodies do not adopt laws, but discuss and prepare them. Only the law approved by the Sovereign comes into force. Governing powers can be delegated to the prime minister, chancellor, dictator, and so on. (according to the situation and conditions) and then distributed by branches and industries. Representative bodies, like the "Soviets of the whole earth" (Zemsky Sobors) of old Moscow, are called upon to convey to the Supreme Power the thoughts, will and aspirations of the people from all over vast Russia. This is their main task. In this sense, "mandates to deputies" with the right to recall them in the USSR were much closer to life than today's "independence", but in fact, just dependence on financial and political clans. Vitaly Tretyakov's proposal seems very fruitful to begin the formation of new (more mobile and not privileged) estates - peasant, worker, medical, military, scientific, private property, etc. - and move on to transferring representative functions to them (and not to parties) now.

The "federative structure" of the state should remain in the past. No "sovereignty" except the Sovereign. The governors or governors-general appointed by the Supreme Power carry out political leadership in the localities. But - with a genuine diversity and "blooming complexity" of local life and structure. Any form of local self-government - zemstvos, councils, the Cossack circle, church communities, kurultai - is acceptable. The population itself chooses the form of self-government and the persons who lead it, establishes local taxes and fees, determines the forms of ownership and management. Governors don't get involved. Their main task is to ensure the unity and integrity of the country, the functioning of objects of strategic and national importance, transport and communications. Moreover, the formation of political subjects on a national basis is excluded. But - with full cultural-ethnic and ethnic-religious autonomy, freedom of use and development of local languages ​​and dialects.

Social-monarchism puts forward two main principles of the state's life - autocracy and self-government. » a number of zemstvo units (regions) self-governing on the basis of the law given by the Monarch. Thus, a "series of living social self-governing zemstvo organisms" arises. “Upstairs” persons from among the zemstvos are moving forward. In this way it is possible to create a numerous and really "better" social class. At the same time, the Zemsky Sobor (Council of the Whole Land) is not a one-time meeting that determines (does not “elect”!) the future Tsar and the Dynasty, but “a constantly convened nationwide meeting, necessary in special situations, the unity of state-national forces ... the highest, emergency body of the royal - People's Conference.

Social-monarchism is fundamentally not "fixated" on the economy. Somewhere it is better to do it this way, and somewhere else. Many circumstances matter - the size of the territory, climate, nature, religion, culture, geostrategic position, what is called "local development". Except one. The basis of the development is land. It is no coincidence that “land” is a synonym for “volost”, and “volost” also means power. Land, like power, is indivisible. This is the same relationship "Tsar-people". Hence the impossibility and inadmissibility of private ownership of land. "The land of God and the Sovereign, and so - a draw." "On the day of Spirits, the earth is a birthday girl." “Mother Earth…” The land can only be given for possession, for temporary use, for the sake of its cultivation, but not for ownership with the right to sell, although everything that is called “fruits, products and incomes” in legal language can be located both in collective and private property of the peasants (Christians). Land can also be inherited - but without the right to sell it. By the way, in the same way it passes by inheritance, but royal power cannot be sold; in this sense, the Tsar is the same "peasant", that is, a Christian.

The same evil as the sale of land is capitalism - not at all a synonym for private property (contrary to Marxism). Capitalism is precisely banking capital, "hundredths" (percentage), that is, making money out of nothing. The church canon prescribes excommunication from the Church for this. Even if today we are forced to deal with banks and interest, we must be clearly aware that this is a direct sin with all the ensuing consequences for both bankers and clients. According to the Pilots, receiving (and giving) money for hundredths is a sin, for which excommunication is due. There is complete solidarity with Islam on this issue. The fact that a highly developed interest-free economy is possible is evidenced by modern Iran. And we will come to this - even if not in a single hour.

In principle, the optimal economic structure of the future monarchy can be considered as follows: the land, its subsoil, forests, water resources, as well as the continental shelf are in the exclusive possession of the state ("Earth - God's and sovereign"), but can be provided for the possession and use of subjects of the Empire and their corporate associations. All heavy, strategic, defense, aviation, nuclear, space industries and high technologies (including nanotechnologies) also belong exclusively to the state. Civil maritime, civil air fleet and rail transport can operate on a mixed public-private basis, as they do today. Education - public, but taking into account local cultural, religious and ethnic characteristics (on a voluntary basis). Approximately the same should apply to medicine, with high wages of workers, but private clinics, apparently, can exist. In agriculture, fishing, crafts, etc. All forms of ownership and production can exist, from state to farm. Sphere of light and food industry, different kinds services are best if they are private.
All financial activity (ideally interest-free), of course, should be in the hands of the state and carried out on behalf of the Sovereign - according to the principle of "caesar's denarius". Industrial, Peasant, Cooperative, Land, Mining, Forestry, Construction, Young Family Bank and other banks should be branches of the State Bank, although they should have a greater degree of freedom. Private financial activity and, moreover, uncontrolled access to the activities of foreign and international financial structures cannot be allowed.
In the public sector, of course, we will have to recall the Soviet organizational and technical experience - of course, minus the bureaucratic-petty regulation and "party control".
Apparently, such a primordially Russian type of entrepreneurship and labor as an artel (including in the form of a full and limited partnership) will have to return to life.
The state will definitely have to take fundamental, including theoretical, science under its direct tutelage as the basis for any industrial and technological development. The lack of a quick "commercial exit" should not be an obstacle here. Ideally, science is under the personal care of the Sovereign, and culture - the Empress.
The monarchical state is a state of social cooperation. Representatives of the administration and workers must be equally represented in the leading economic bodies of state enterprises, and representatives of the entrepreneurs and workers in mixed and private enterprises. The same applies to sectoral trade unions (syndicates) that have their representation in national legislative bodies (like Zemsky Sobors). In this regard, the experience of Spain in the 1940s and 1950s with its "Charter of Labour" is very interesting. In general, the experience of syndicalism can be very useful.

Social-monarchism considers law as an objective, God-given reality necessary for the life of the state and the people. However, the right is not self-worth. Modern jurisprudence, elevating law to an "absolute value", thereby best case“thinks out” the question of its origin, at worst, turns law into an idol. “New paganism” is not Russian Rodnoverie, “new paganism” is a cult of law as an idol to which sacrifices are made, “humanitarian bombardments”. Perhaps May 2 in Odessa is also a victim of the “human rights” idol.

The ancient Aryans spoke of a "company" - a world law that has a rotational (around the World Tree) nature, manifested in the change of seasons and the labor practice of human communities. Orthodox Christianity, without denying such an understanding, sees in the right the action of the Holy Spirit, true and life-giving, who is everywhere and fills everything. The actions of the Holy Spirit are manifold and personal. Therefore, there is not and cannot be any “single right”. Law - “rule” - that is, with the help of which they rule, is determined by citizenship to the Tsar, religious loyalty, belonging to a people and ethnic group, social (estate) affiliation, age, marital status, profession and professional training. There can be no "equal access" to a nuclear reactor for a physicist and an artist, to an operating table for a surgeon and a nurse... Only those who know all its "inputs and outcomes", including state secrets, can professionally manage the state and judge about it. "Human rights" is an absolute abstraction. Law is vital and concrete.

The concept of “legal obligation” introduced by the Russian jurist N.N. Alekseev (1879-1964) which deciphers: “This is an organic combination of rights and obligations in multilateral relations<…>Legal obligations on one side may correspond to unilateral positive obligations on the other. An ideal case of such relations could be that unlimited monarch who would consider his power not as a right, but also as an obligation in relation to his subjects, as a service to them.<…>On the one hand, legal obligations correspond to legal obligations on the other. Such a “social ideal” “could be realized if the leading stratum of the state were imbued with the idea that its power is not a right, but also an obligation; and if at the same time the ruled would not be simple objects of power, would not only be bearers of duties, positive and negative, but also bearers of powers ... In such a state, truly freedom would be ideally combined with obedience ... as freedom of organic belonging to the whole.

Strictly speaking, every right is also a duty. Occupation right public office should involve an obligation to undergo appropriate moral (including military service) and vocational training. Why are such requirements (except for the army) made to doctors, but not to officials? The right to participate in representative activities is associated with those whom a person specifically represents (countrymen, colleagues in the profession, etc.). “Orders to voters” (in Soviet times, by the way, they were) are obligatory - with the right of recall. All this also applies to the so-called. "fundamental rights and freedoms". The right to life - from the moment of conception, which implies a ban on abortion. The right to work is also the obligation to work, of course, given the unconditional variety of forms of labor. Freedom of speech presupposes knowledge of what one is talking about. . But for the same reasons, creative freedom cannot be arbitrarily limited: what right does an official have to get involved, for example, in questions of theoretical physics or poetry ...

There may be two "levels of law" - national (imperial) and local, including local customary and religious - Sharia, shamanic law of the peoples of the North, etc., as it was in the Russian Empire. Of course, local law can only be used within local and ethnic communities, and with other participants in legal relations, imperial law is applied. It is also possible the existence of estate law - wider than the current corporate one. This is how the single legal space correlates with law as a “measure of freedom” in its diversity. In this way, law gets rid of its alienated character and begins to live a living life ...

And the guarantor of legal obligations is the Supreme Power standing above all social strata.

Thus - if we have in mind only a very brief outline - social-monarchism (let it be, as Father Vsevolod said, "the unification of the monarchy and socialism) is rather the "sum of Russian history" than a strict ideology. It is not "given", but "given". The future Russian monarchy, if it is restored, will not mechanically reproduce either the Moscow or St. Petersburg or "Stalinist" model, but rather awaken all of this together in deep memory. And not only that, but also the entire memory of the entire ancestral home. This is “New Rus', strong, according to the old model” (right. John of Kronstadt). Our City of Kitezh

Konstantin Leontiev, a philosopher and writer of the 19th century in the Russian Empire, left behind a great legacy, anticipating the socialist state structure of Russia, which already during the life of the philosopher and monk Clement (shortly before his death, K.N. Leontiev took monastic tonsure with the name Clement) was born in Russian State, as the only possible system that successfully complements the monarchy. IN late XIX century, the nobility, which was the backbone of the royal throne, began to get carried away with capitalist ideas, without which the development of the state was impossible, but it was these signs of the new century that carried the great danger of estate Russia, since they completely devalued the class of nobles, and the throne of the Tsar remained without support. KN Leontiev perfectly saw the danger of the new time for Russia, which could not become a capitalist Power, like the countries of the West, where the communal way of life was destroyed several centuries ago and the change of socio-economic formations took place relatively successfully. In communal Russia, such processes of breaking the class character of society threatened with the greatest upheavals, but few saw and realized the impending dangers for the Russian Empire and the royal throne. KN Leontiev was one of the few who understood the coming dangers, and who not only became the herald of the need to build socialism in Russia, but also predicted the future state structure.

Leontiev K.N. - Alexandrov A.A. 3.5.1890:

Sometimes I think (I don’t say I’m dreaming, because it’s alien to me, my tastes, but I involuntarily think, objectively and impartially foresee) that some Russian Tsar, perhaps in the not too distant future, will become the head of the socialist movement (as St. Constantine became at the head of the religious - "Sim conquer!") and organizes it in the same way as Konst (antin) contributed to the organization of Christianity, having entered the first path of the Ecumenical Councils. But what does "organization" mean? Organization, means coercion, means well-organized despotism, means legalization of chronic, constant, skillfully and wisely distributed violence against the personal will of citizens. Therefore, the liberal (according to his foolish conclusions, and not the foundations, completely correct) Spencer sees with horror in socialism the new coming state slavery. And another consideration: to organize such a complex, durable and new slavery is hardly possible without the help of mysticism. Now, if after the annexation of Constantinople, the hitherto unprecedented concentration of Orthodox administration in the Cathedral-Patriarchal form (of course, without any theory of "infallibility" - which we will not tolerate) coincides, on the one hand, with the intensification and intensification of that mystical flow that is growing even now in Russia, and on the other hand, with the inevitable and destructive labor movements in the West, and even here (one way or another), at least two foundations - religious and state-economic can be vouched for for a long time.

In short, the meaning of this message can be described as follows: the Russian Tsar will become the head of the socialist movement, but it is hardly possible to organize such a complex, durable and new slavery without the help of mysticism. “If the mystical current that is now growing in Russia coincides with the irreversible and destructive labor movement, then two foundations can be obtained - religious and state-economic.” These words of K.N. Leotiev surprisingly coincide with the statements of the German philosopher O. Spengler in his work “Prussianism and Socialism” of 1920:

Authoritarian socialism is monarchical, the most responsible position in a grandiose organism, the place of the first servant of this state, in the words of Frederick the Great, cannot be given over to private careerism - such is the idea that has slowly matured in the world of mankind and has long nurtured for itself a special human type.

Why does socialism have to be monarchical? Because the socialist system requires, in the apt words of K.N. Leontiev, “well-organized despotism”, that is, coercion, “new slavery”, which is necessary not because society does not tend to take care of state interests as if it were its own, - for the Russian people, this state of affairs is precisely the meaning of their existence - concern for the preservation and enhancement of the Motherland, but because labor under socialism is a necessity and cannot but be forced due to the homogeneity of society in relation to property, which is state. That is, the state - the owner, forces the whole society to work, as the basis of its development and improvement of society, where labor is not only a measure of personal well-being, but also the (only) way to increase the well-being of the state, which is not a night watchman of capital, as under capitalism, exercising its functions of a regulator and guardian solely at the expense of taxes on capital, but under socialism it is the state that serves as a guarantee of the progressive development of society, increasing its well-being and developing creative potentials. Therefore, the state under socialism is obliged to force society to work as an obligatory duty.

However, coercion cannot be collectively governed in the form of a parliament and a cabinet of ministers, as it is under capitalism. Coercion is always monarchical and has a strict vertical hierarchy, like an army one, otherwise there is no way to create a strict system of “comfortable despotism”. In the USSR, the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU was a "red monarch", especially I.V. Stalin, who was feared by his subordinates, but idolized by the people - real signs of a monarchical system. In fairness, it should be noted that such a state of affairs was possible only under I.V. Stalin, whose practical mind and colossal efficiency made it possible to keep the CPSU system - socialism - society from disintegrating, since such a formula has nothing to do with a true monarchy, the only able to give impetus to the state development of socialism with its socialized property. The party, even the only one, could not do this, as it had two features: 1. Preservation of its own power and its own reproduction, even to the detriment of the development of society, 2. The collective responsibility of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU is a utopia, moreover, the dependence of the General Secretary on the decisions of the Politburo immediately turns him into an executor, and not into a sole leader.

That is why, already from the first decade of the existence of the USSR, revisionist views began to form within the party elite on the need to reform socialism to capitalism, because it is capitalism, as a socio-economic formation, that can be found exclusively with a collective method of management and responsibility, which was proved in the USA and Great Britain, where many collective organizations were created, bringing together politicians and financiers, industrialists and lawyers, who later became the aristocratic elite of big business. Thus, socialism, as a principle of state coercion and state ownership, is possible only under such a socio-economic system, at the head of which is a monarch who exercises a pyramid of power, and not collegial management, especially party management. But one monarchy is not enough, just like coercion alone, it is necessary to earn the devotion of the people, their love and self-sacrifice, without which it is difficult to imagine the successful development of socialism and its principles. It is important not only to please society - this is a dangerous and dead-end path, which Nicolo Machiavelli remarkably spoke about in his work "The Sovereign" of 1532, but you need to be the first who shows his concern for society and the state, who is aware of his responsibility for the future of the people and country . However, without the mystical component of power, it is impossible to combine firmness of will, understanding of the ways of development of society and the state, as well as care for the citizens of one's country. Only the leader who understands the mystical component of power is able to successfully combine all the qualities of a sole ruler - a monarch. It is the monarch who, at the wedding to the kingdom, entrusts himself to God and takes an oath of this fidelity, in return receiving everything necessary for the successful leadership of the country - a strong will, leadership talent and love of his people.

It is this thesis that is reflected in a letter from K.N. Leontiev to T.I. Filippov on September 3, 1889, Optina Pustyn:

One of the three: or 1) A special culture, a special system, a special way of life, submission to one's own Church Unity; or 2) Subordination of Slavic statehood to the Roman papacy; or 3) Take in hand an extreme revolutionary movement and stand at the head of it, wipe the bourgeois culture of Europe from the face of the earth... It is not for nothing that this great state machine, which is called Russia, has been built and has not yet been completed... One cannot think that it until its very (until inevitable in time, after all) until its death and death, it will live only as a political one, i.e. like a mechanical force, without any ideal, even the most terrible, but still ideal influence on history. I believe that no matter what path Russia chooses after that great upheaval, which both terrifies everyone and at the same time is inevitably approaching, we must point to the 1st path - isolation and do everything we can to convert the Slavs to it.

It is amazing, but in this passage, K.N. Leontiev considers three ways of Russian statehood, which are: , tried to wipe out the bourgeois culture of Europe from the face of the earth, taking party socialism as a basis, when the communist party acted as a collective “comfortable despotism”, “new slavery”, led by fiery revolutionaries who dreamed of subordinating all of Europe to their dictate. But the utopia that cost millions of Russian lives remained a utopia, the West did not want the state socialization of property, individualism and the Masonic motto “freedom, equality, fraternity” were important to it, which did not take root in Russia, despite the desperate attempts of the Grand Orient of France and its progenitor - the Order of Malta. 2. The current stage of Russian statehood under the auspices of capitalism, but with the face of the Central Committee of the CPSU, as the only possible monarchical power, its surrogate, necessary for the public consciousness of the Russian people, who do not see themselves otherwise than in a collective, community, when the state is that same community, to which the Russian heart has been striving since ancient times. Again, political dualism took possession of the Russian state, based on the principle of “freedom, equality, fraternity” of the Vatican orders, alien to the Russian people, when even the Russian Church strives for union with the papal throne, which has retained its monarchy from the very beginning of the transition from Roman paganism to Roman Christianity, which is different from Eastern, Orthodox Christianity, which does not require proof of devotion, but remains in truth to this day. 3. The upcoming stage is apparently the last one in Russian history, is called upon to combine state socialism and monarchism in governing the country and society, as the only possible way government controlled under socialism, capable of giving a colossal impetus to the development of the country and society, not bound by obligations with any of the aristocratic Masonic associations of Europe. It is the Orthodox monarchy that is able to revive the Russian Church, which is now in decline after a short renaissance in the 1990s, to organize society by new despotism and new state slavery for the progressive development of the state, in whose current existence the unity and struggle of opposites dominates the true understanding of the chosen path. But only in this way can we gain true freedom from Western coercion, from Anglo-Saxon despotism, which hides behind the imaginary freedom of capitalism, which is in fact slavery without any equality and fraternity, where fraternity is understood as the need for blind and unquestioning submission to the whims and lusts of those who have acquired his fortune on the coercion and enslavement of society, not in the least caring about the benefit of the state.

I am of the opinion that socialism in the 20th and 21st centuries will begin to play, on the basis of the state-economic, the role that Christianity played on the basis of the religious-state when it began to triumph. Now socialism is still in the period of martyrs and the first communities scattered here and there. It will also find its own Konstantin (it is very possible and even most likely that this economic Konstantin will be called Alexander, Nikolai, Georgy. I pointed out, but I want to prove that, in essence, liberalism is undoubtedly destruction, and socialism can become creation.

This is a very important and interesting prophetic statement by K.N. national culture and the economy, socializing all these principles of statehood to preserve the people as the driving force of their own, national state, protecting their territorial integrity and economic way of existence. Wars only strengthened statehood, which was largely facilitated by the state ideology, based on Christian principles and methods of maintaining it, while the bulwark of Christianity was precisely the monarchical power. But as the apostasy processes developed, which found their manifestation in the Vatican, when religion was gradually replaced by papal infallibility, statehood began to decline, whose importance greatly decreased with the advent of capitalism, as a necessary condition for the industrialization of social production. Actually, the very principle of industrialization required capital - this is how the economic system was first changed, and then the political one, when the monarchy was no longer needed by the adherents of "freedom, equality and fraternity" in the accumulation of their own capital and influence. So the world was divided not according to the state principle, but according to spheres of influence, becoming supranational.

The USSR developed according to the same principles as the rest of the world, only it was based on the principle of party socialism, as the only possible one at a time when it was dangerous to even think about a monarchy, and loyalty to the communist party was the only way to maintain state socialism by an external form. party slavery, which had no roots in the Russian people, who saw in the USSR their own hope for a bright future for their children. The Russian people are always focused on the future, but are reverent about their past - this was not understood by the party functionaries who tried to forcibly cancel the past and come up with a utopian future, for which it was worth forcing society to work. However, these chimeras of the party future destroyed themselves, since socialism cannot exist without a true monarchy, therefore, from the 70s, the CPSU headed for a change in the socio-economic formation, the slogan "Forward to communism!" Was replaced by another, but this one also the principle of capitalism in the communal consciousness of the Russian people did not find its continuation, since it turned out to be alien to the Russian soul, demanding service to the Fatherland, as to its family and clan. That is why today's society, even those of its representatives who never lived under the USSR, has nurtured a new non-party socialism, which cannot but be monarchical.

KN Leontiev not only indicates the time of the implementation of the new monarchical socialism - the 21st century, but also names the name of the monarch! Truly amazing prophecies made back in 1889! I would like to dwell in more detail on the date of their implementation: 1. The first date is hidden in the inscription in the Ipatiev House at the site of the execution of the royal family, 2. The second date is hidden in the inscriptions on the icon of the Nativity of the Most Holy Theotokos, compiled according to the prophecy of the monk Abel in the middle of the 19th century. In the basement of the Ipatiev House, an unknown hand, which, according to witness testimony, belonged to the rabbi, was inscribed: 1918 148467878 87888 Everything is clear with the first line: this is the year of the execution of Nicholas II, the second line is read through one digit: 1 - 8 - 6 - 8, the year the birth of Nicholas II (1868), the numbers remain 44778. They are deciphered as follows: 4 - 1904 (the beginning of the war with Japan), 4 - 1914 (the beginning of the Patriotic War of 1914), 7 - 1917 (forced removal from the throne of Nicholas II, the Provisional Government), 7 - 1917 (October Revolution), 8 - 1918 (execution of Nicholas II and the royal martyrs). The third line: 87888. It is presumably deciphered as follows: 8 - the eighth generation from Paul I, this is a direct indication of the future Tsar, then the year of his birth and dates associated with the history of Russia and the biography of the future Tsar, as well as the time of the beginning of his ministry.

But there is another decoding of this set of numbers: Orthodox Church considers the date of creation of the world 5509 BC and this tradition came from Byzantium. However, there is, apart from others, another date for the creation of the world - 5872 according to the Septuagint, from 70 interpreters. At the same time, we remember that a real miracle happened to one of the interpreters, Simeon - he did not die until he was convinced of the validity of the prophecy recorded in the Old Testament. So, maybe the chronology according to the Septuagint is more correct than according to the Byzinthian tradition? We come to the main, paradoxical conclusion: if we add the current 2016 to 5872, we get an amazing date - 7888. What then does the eight in front of 7888 mean? August! That is, from this August 2016, the promise began, which was inscribed on the wall of the Ipatiev House. Precisely because these figures were inscribed in the basement of a house where a terrible crime of the 20th century took place, which ended one period of the existence of Russia and began a new, last existence of the Russian State, when state socialism was to be established, the only possible way for the industrialization of Russia - the USSR, it can be said with all certainty that this is a real prophecy, and not a whim of an unknown rabbi. Consequently, from that moment began the transitional period from the current socio-economic formation to the socialist monarchy. And yet, this combination of numbers means a short-term transition from the present century to the next century - only one is missing for the fullness of the future century!

When will the time for a socialist monarchy in Russia come? According to the prophecy, on the wall of the Ipatiev House - in 2018, moreover, the number 8 was known in advance to the Order of Malta, which is of tremendous importance in today's Russia (however, the post-war steps of I.V. Stalin indirectly confirm that the Leader had certain agreements with the order - fulfillment of the prophecies of the Old and New Testaments). So, B. Yeltsin prepared the Kremlin for 1998, when not only restoration was carried out, but also all the attributes of royal power were recreated, up to the inscription of the monogram G on cutlery (George, from the prophecy of K.N. Leontiev), and in the Cathedral of Christ The Savior installed two royal thrones under the painting of the anointing of the kingdom of Saul by the prophet Samuel. The next year was 2008 when again a string of political events leading to the restoration of socialism in Russia and the introduction of monarchical government. Now on the threshold of 2018. However, interpreters forget about the inscription of the prophecy of Abel on the icon of the Nativity of the Virgin, where, with the correct interpretation, with the exact use of the rules for designating years in the Slavic language, it turns out 2017, which corresponds to the Jewish chronology from Noah, because it is on October 3, 2016 that the next 5777 year comes, where in an amazing way, three sevens connected! That is, according to the prophecy of Abel, the monarchy in Russia will be revived in 2017, and the coronation of the Tsar will take place close to the date of the Nativity of the Virgin (September 21). Consequently, 2018 will be the year of the beginning of the service of the monarch at the head of Russia.

But how is this possible, because today there are no signs, not only of the birth (restoration) of socialism, but there are no prerequisites for a monarchy in Russia? “But He said: what is impossible with men is possible with God” (Lk. 18-27), it is enough to recall that on March 2, 1917, the Russian Empire ceased to exist along with the forcible removal from the throne of the Sovereign Emperor Nicholas II, and already on October 25, six months later , the October Socialist Revolution took place, which established socialism in Russia and gave a new direction to the history of our state. Six months were enough to finally change the face of Russia, its political system, society and property rights. Is this really impossible today? Judging by the mood of society, by its desire for universal justice and equality before the law, its unwillingness to serve as a slave to capital and its rules, the return transition from capitalism to socialism may take even less time than in 1917, because socialist principles are still alive in Russian society 21st century, which cannot be said about the 20th century during the time of the tsarist monarchy. At the same time, non-party socialism (parties, from the CPSU to the Liberal Democratic Party and the United Russia, have clearly demonstrated their uselessness in the absence of a strong leader) can only be monarchical and nothing else, which was reflected in the works of K.N. Leontiev and other thinkers not related to utopias of the communist movement.

Generally say:

1) The state must be colorful, difficult, strong, estate and cautiously mobile. - At all severely, sometimes to the point of ferocity.

2) The Church should be more independent than the present one. The hierarchy must be bolder, more powerful, more concentrated. The church should soften statehood, and not vice versa.

3) Life should be poetic, diverse in a national unity isolated from the West. Or at all, for example, not to dance, but to pray to God; and if you dance, then in your own way, invent or develop folk to elegant refinement, etc.

4) Laws, principles of power must be stricter; people should try to be personally kinder; one will balance the other.

5) Science must develop in a spirit of deep contempt for its usefulness.

If, however, Russia does not follow this path indicated by me (along the path naturally emerging from the former Slavophilism), nor the path of another discipline - along the road to Rome indicated by Soloviev - then she (Russia) will first dissolve in a very vulgar and liberal and colorless all-Slavism; and then it will last no worse than France for a hundred years, sinking quickly lower and lower and die! Imagine that in 5 years 0 some the whole West will merge(little by little weary of new European wars) into one liberal and a nihilistic republic. If by that time the Slavs only those lagging behind from the general destruction, but not deeply isolated in spirit, for their part will not want (due to some good backwardness) to merge with this Europe themselves, but will only or constitutional realm, monotonously liberal in the general system, then the republican all-Europe will come to St. Petersburg, or Kiev, or Tsargrad, and say: "Abandon your dynasty, or we will leave no stone unturned and devastate the whole country." And we will merge with the lovely utilitarian republic of the West. But if we are ourselves, then in rebuff we will overturn with glory on them all of Asia- even Muslim and pagan, and we will only have to save art monuments there.

The amazing prophecy of K.N. Leontiev! 100 years after this letter was written (an error of 50 years does not matter, since there is no exact date) the West has indeed merged into a liberal, nihilistic republic of the European Union, which denies the very need for national statehood - this is precisely its nihilism, when before confederation, like the United States, there was only a step left, Russia independently, of its own free will, entered this European quagmire of liberalism. “A monotonously liberal constitutional kingdom”, according to the prophecy of K.N. Leontiev, Russia became after the coup of August 1991, when the West really suggested that the members of the Central Committee of the CPSU give up their self-identity, destroy the USSR for the sake of a capitalist future, where the leaders undoubtedly played the first violin the capitalist powers, who in a few years completely altered the great music of state socialism in their own way and their own score. Thus, in the street dust of incompetent idle talkers, a great Power fell, bearing the name of Stalin, by whom it was created and whose fruits are still alive.

Two great people - Nicholas II and I.V. Stalin did not allow Russia to disappear, did not dissolve it in the melting pot of Western liberalism, but managed to preserve Russian self-identity, at the cost of incredible courage and devotion to Russia. For the Russian soul, its culture and faith, its monarchical future, when the mystical component of power will inspire many Russian people to sacrificial service to Russia, Nicholas II is still responsible, taking the burden of betrayal and perjury of the Russian people on his shoulders. For a bright mind, the desire for creative work, an understanding of one's personal responsibility for the fate of the Motherland, whose saving ideology was state socialism - the only possible way to industrialize the country under international capitalism, I.V. Stalin is also responsible today, who showed the uniqueness of Russian socialism, inaccessible to any another nation. With such dedication to love the Motherland and be ready not to spare even one's life for an idea, only a Russian person can, who is able to simultaneously contain God and man. And this Man, brought up in the patriarchal Rus' of the Rurikids - the Romanovs, armed with a sword forged by I.V. Stalin, is capable, according to the apt word of K.N. Leontiev, to overturn the whole of Asia on Europe, devastating it from the shame of moral and physical sodomy.

Moreover, the Russian world today, as never before, is ready to unite in a military alliance with China, and this Asian army of Gog and Magog has no worthy rival in the modern world, no one wants to get involved with the strength and power of this army, in which Chinese pragmatism will unite with the victorious glory of the Russian warrior. Tremble Europe, bend the knee of the USA, bashfully hide the eternal intriguer England - look what power and glory are coming to a world lying in the evil of intrigue and betrayal! AND main blow the united army of Russia and China needs to be inflicted on American vassals in the Middle East region, mixing puppet monarchies with the sand of the Syrian desert, which are no longer anything of themselves, but still capable of delivering a dastardly stab in the back under the cover of the United States. This is exactly what K.N. Leontiev says in his “Letters on Eastern Affairs” of 1882:

Quick and sure(judging by the general state of political affairs) successful war, due solve the eastern question and establish Russia on the Bosphorus will give us at once a way out of our moral and political disorder, which we shall seek in vain in inner changes. It goes without saying that Tsargrad cannot become an administrative capital for the Russian Empire, like Petersburg. It doesn't even have to be part or province of the empire. This great world center with the adjacent districts of Thrace and Asia Minor must personally belong to the sovereign-emperor (like Finland or the former Poland). There by itself under such a condition, those new orders will begin, which can serve as the highest unifying cultural-state example for a 1000-year-old, undoubtedly already tired and from the 61st year sick emancipation of Russia. There will then be Two Russias, inextricably linked in the person of the sovereign; Russia-empire with an administrative capital (in Kyiv) and Russia - the head of the Great Eastern Union with a new cultural capital on the Bosphorus.

A wonderful prophecy by K.N. Leontiev about the need to complete the Turkish campaign of 1916 with a victory over the Saracens. There is no and never will be any confidence in Turkey, which is today under the rule of the Grand Orient of France - the second most cunning after England, the state of Europe, whose emissaries constantly humiliate Russia, forcing us to take part in foreign wars. But the final and irreversible limit of this Masonic policy has come, you just need to set yourself the goal of capturing the Bosporus and the Dardanelles, and the success of the military campaign will not keep you waiting, moreover, the success of the fleeting war and the Russian flag raised over Ankara will be demonstrated to the whole world, but most importantly , China, that the Russians were permanently entrenched in the Middle East, cutting their own door in the Mediterranean, connecting the Black Sea with the Red Sea, which London was so afraid of, for such a state of affairs means the end of British rule in Syria and Persia. Undoubtedly, Russia’s Middle East war will not only strengthen the Russian State, but will change the balance of power in the world, will make it possible to erase from the history of our country all those nihilistic motives that have tormented the Russian land for a hundred years, humiliated its culture and national self-identification, its Orthodox, trusting soul. This tragic emancipation of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, mistaken for the "golden age" of Russian culture, in fact turned out to be a pagan renaissance, similar to the European one, whose poisonous shoots led to the revolution of 1917, plunged the Russian people into a fratricidal Civil War, turned the powerful USSR into its pathetic likeness in the 90s. But today everything is changing rapidly, the State is acquiring its own meaning, which was predicted in the 19th century by the outstanding Russian thinker and visionary Konstantin Leontiev, predicting Russia not only the future strengthening of the sovereignty of the Russian land, but its social system, which has never been in human history, and will not be. . State socialism, multiplied by the Russian monarchy, which combines “Chinese statehood and Indian mysticism of power”, will force the whole world to take a different look at Russia, which ten years ago was considered a second-rate Power, and today we are ready to recognize its dominant character in international affairs , without which the main thing cannot happen, for the sake of which the thousand-year history of the Order of Malta was created - the reconstruction of the Third Temple and the accession of the King of Jerusalem. In this unity of God's Providence and its struggle of opposites between two worldviews on a universal scale - Russia and Israel, lies all the salt of the previous generations of two thousand years, preparing what should happen soon. We have been given a unique opportunity to be at the very edge of these global events, anticipating the end of human history on an earthly scale, when through a fiery leap one stage will be replaced by another, the temporary will change to the eternal, where the place of each is determined today by himself. Today, on the eve of 2017, you need to look back at your path, leaving what prevents you from going light, and take only what is useful on the path, the price of which is eternity.

Fedoseev A.N. Maksimov V.V.

Do you think that the re-creation of socialism in modern Russia, freed from the party dictates of the times of the USSR, is not only predicted by the greatest Russian philosopher Konstantin Leontiev, the need for the speedy reindustrialization of Russia as the only possible economic and social formation that gives the necessary result in the shortest possible time, but also as the foundation of a social monarchy, which most fully reflects the desire of the Russian people for an authoritarian method of government, which guarantees the progressive development of Russia in the absence of corruption, nepotism and ever-growing bureaucracy, hindering the development of the country and creating an opportunity for the West to introduce agents of influence into the ruling elite, namely the combination of socialism and the monarchical method government can give the necessary impetus to the development of Russia on the eve of global catastrophes and the Third World War in the Middle East, where the role of Russia today is unusually high?

In 1919, the book of the philosopher O. Spengler "Prussianism and Socialism" was published, in which the author criticized the ideas of the class society of K. Marx and his theory of economic development, offering his vision of Germany's way out of the crisis Treaty of Versailles. O. Spengler, relying on the desire of the Prussians for collective work, for a heightened sense of justice, brought out a new type of socialist relations in the state, where the driving force is not the party parliament and not the liberalism of Anglo-Saxon capitalism, but the people united for one goal. In such a state system, called state socialism, the official becomes "the first servant of his people", and already "it is not the nation that forms the state, but the state the nation." From this extremely interesting work, I would like to dwell on two fundamental conclusions made by O. Spengler and directly related to modern Russia.

The first conclusion about the emerging party socialism in Russia, which will replace capitalism:

In Russia, it will be replaced by the only popular form under such conditions in the form of a new tsarism of some type, and it can be assumed that this system will stand closer to the Prussian-socialist forms than to the parliamentary-capitalist ones. However, the future, hidden in the depths of Russia, lies not in the resolution of political and social difficulties, but in the forthcoming birth of a new religion, the third of rich opportunities in Christianity.

In this foresight of the events that took place in Russia, O. Spengler predicted the state system that replaced capitalism and flourished most during the Great Patriotic War and the subsequent revival of the country. Created by I.V. Stalin with the help of the State Defense Committee (GKO), state socialism was non-partisan and its only driving force was the Russian people, who shouldered not only the hardships and blood of the war, but also the subsequent restoration of the country. This decade has shown that state socialism, led by the leader of the Russian people, has an enormous power, unprecedented before, capable of carrying out grandiose tasks. Relying on the creative energy of the Russian people, state socialism brought to life not only the creative potential of the intelligentsia and labor collectives, but also created social conditions for collectivism and comradeship in all sectors. National economy when no one separated himself from the whole organism of his country and his people.

Satisfaction from the results of their work, from the growing well-being of the working people and the power of their country, made all our people the true masters of their Motherland, the creators of its future, and these social imperatives became dominant in our society for many decades to come. The impulse given to the whole society by state socialism turned out to be so strong that neither the “Khrushchev thaw”, nor the “Brezhnev stagnation”, nor the “Gorbachev perestroika” could break it, but only the treacherous essence of market capitalism with its total lie, could change the socialist foundations of development our society. But, further development capitalist relations in Russia showed the whole inconsistency of this false path for the Russian people, who increasingly began to mentally turn to the bygone socialist era, largely forgiving her party leaderism and the closeness of the party nomenclature.

A new economic and political order is knocking on our Russian doors, in which the national interests of the country and the people must become the fundamental principles of state development. Capitalism is not a nationally oriented social system, since the achievement of personal gain only divides the people, making them dependent on the will of a small group of people, hiding behind party rhetoric and demagogy of pluralism of opinions. The parliament became the spokesman for the will of oligarchic, monopoly capitalism, and not its voters - the peoples of Russia, thereby finally discrediting not only the liberal-democratic ideas of the development of modern society, but also social democracy, which allows the identity of different forms of ownership. That is why the question of the transition to a nationally oriented economy and social policy, which will become a reflection of the people's needs and aspirations, is long overdue in the Russian people themselves.

Such a vector of the national development of Russia and the Russian people, no doubt, should be socialism, as the most just form of state relations, but devoid of party leadership. However, the question arises: who will shape the state policy and the national economy, who will be entrusted with the fate of the people and the country? This is the birth of the "third religion" in Christianity, which O. Spengler spoke about in his work. What is this religion? O. Spengler answers:

Socialist monarchy - for authoritarian socialism is monarchical, the most responsible position in a grandiose organism, the place of the first servant of this state, in the words of Frederick the Great, cannot be placed at the disposal of private careerism - such is the idea that has slowly matured in the world of Faustian humanity and has long nurtured for itself special human type.

Socialist or people's monarchy, this is a new kind of state - people's religion, which has never been in any state system. Not without reason, O. Spengler says that authoritarian (state) socialism is monarchical, since the ideas of state development are formed in a non-party society, where the party ethics of the decisions made do not dominate the leadership of the country, and there is no party authoritarianism trying to save itself by any means even to the detriment of national interests. But there is “the first servant of his people”, who was elected by direct vote from among his equals and likes, deserved this title only by the desire of the people and the state good, but not his personal success. Such authoritarianism of the people's power is based only on the desire for national development, the recognition of their state as a powerful spokesman for the people's will, and is aimed at improving social relations in the country.

With the development of productive forces and production relations, which form a new type of social structure in Russia, when everyone perceives himself as a part, and inseparable, of the whole organism, the prerequisites are created for the creation of Autocratic power, as the apotheosis of state socialism. The absence of careerism, which may well take shape in the conditions of developed socialism, when the first contradictions between the new and the departed system have been overcome, will become a guarantee of the people's desire for the Autocrat, as the leader of socialist transformations in the country. Until that time, all decisions are made collectively, since democracy cannot be based on the will of only one person, when the highest state administration is formed at the congress of people's deputies. But in collegiality there is a potential danger of a desire to retain one's power further, and the lack of rotation of personnel may lead to the creation of a political party of the country's top leadership in the future. That is why it is so important to make the creation of a social, people's monarchy, based on the entire Russian people, expressing a true "first servant of his people" as the main goal already at the first stage.

It is also important to pay attention to another aspect - the appointment of personnel to government posts. The monarch does not need to look back at the popularity of this or that candidate among the people, often won by skillful and ardent speeches, but not by the triumph of talent and determination in deeds. The monarch, as the Anointed of God, always looks much beyond the highly specialized issues of public administration, assigning certain responsibilities to the person who is fully consistent with the strategy for the future development of the country. No collegiate, let alone public judgments are capable of replacing the one on whom God Himself has entrusted a special responsibility to be the shepherd of his people. This episcopal service is available only to one person who has become the head of state socialism - the Autocrat!

Laying the foundations of state socialism, one cannot help but respond to criticism that will inevitably appear both within the social groups of our multinational people and in the Western media, capable of sowing bewilderment or doubt in the Russian nation.

1. The exploitation of man by man is replaced by the exploitation of man by the state. This state of affairs is possible only under war communism, when the public debt of everyone is exchanged for the same set of goods and products for everyone, preferably under a rationing system, and the whole society lives in complete dependence on the decisions made by a narrow group of people who have usurped this right through party demagogy. Socialist relations do not abolish commodity-money relations, but transfer them into the mainstream of state planning in order to most fully meet the needs of the whole society. Wages no longer depend on the will of the employer, but become a backbone incentive to further improve the skills of each worker. Moreover, interest in the final results of one's labor is also stimulated, as is an increase in labor productivity, which ultimately leads to a decrease in retail prices for goods. The state takes care not only of the obligatory work for each member of society, but also of everyday, social needs, providing numerous services and housing free of charge, taking care of the rest and health of the people. Labor is honorable, but the development of the cultural and national characteristics of our people must also keep pace with the growth of productive forces. Thus, the state does not act as an exploiter of the worker, but takes care of its citizens in every possible way, creating the future of the country and the people here and now, and not in the distant future.

2. The lack of economic freedom suppresses the economic activity of citizens, makes them not interested in innovative and inventive activities. the idea of ​​any entrepreneur is not interested in the economic freedom of citizens. At the initial formation of capitalist relations, private entrepreneurship creates a middle class that provides the largest number of jobs. But as monopoly capitalism develops and machines and equipment are introduced to increase labor productivity, more and more workers find themselves on the street. Manual labor is replaced by machine labor and the middle class eventually ceases to exist, turning into trade managers. On the contrary, state socialism is even more interested in reducing the cost of labor time per unit of labor and raising labor productivity than the capitalist, since this allows constantly creating new industries, breaking down obsolete ones. At the same time, taking into account the planned replacement of machines and equipment, there is an incentive to create new, more productive machines and mechanisms that make it possible to release workers to create new industries and new goods and services. Reducing costs leads to lower prices and increased prosperity, which is why the stimulation of the creative process is a priority task of socialism.

3. State enterprises are excluded from the influence of demand for their goods. This leads to a shortage of necessary goods and an overproduction of unnecessary ones. It wasn't always like that. In the days of I.V. Stalin's state socialism, the main emphasis was on commodity production and the quantity, as well as the quality of the goods produced. Nobody canceled the laws of value, the payback of production and the cost per unit of output, as well as credit and money circulation, gave a clear picture not only of the importance of the production of this product, but also of its place in the national economy. Efficiency of state planning consists not only in knowing what goods will be needed now and in a year, but in creating the production of the necessary goods. This planning must include state trade, labor surveys, and the prospect of rising demand for certain types of goods as wealth rises. The state order for the release of goods must take into account the specifics of the enterprise where the order is placed, the capabilities of its equipment and workforce, as well as monetary incentives for enterprises to increase the range of products. At the same time, it is important to avoid the mistakes of "Khrushchev-Brezhnev" socialism, when the commodity indicator of output was replaced by a monetary equivalent, which was the possibility of creating postscripts and thus false planning in the economy. The same thing is happening in today's Russia, when state statistics operate not with commodity indicators, but with monetary ones, which do not take into account inflationary processes and the growth in the cost of production.

4. Guaranteed employment and the system of state distribution generates dependency and disinterest in the results of one's work. Guaranteed employment does not necessarily lead to dependency, since here it is important to take into account the ability of the team to influence each of its members. It is important to create interest in the results of not only personal labor, but the entire team, up to the director of the enterprise. Stimulating an increase in labor productivity and a reduction in costs per unit of output is an indispensable condition for the progressive development of the socialist economy, and here one cannot save, look back at the opinion of other industry producers, but boldly involve them in competition based on the results of their work. Not a mandatory “thirteenth salary” or a quarterly bonus, which does not reflect the final product in any way, but lump-sum payments to the entire workforce based on the results of their production activities. At the same time, it is important that the size of the bonus for each participant in the labor process is determined by the collective itself, and not by the administration, which will make manual and mental workers mutually dependent. At the same time, members of the labor collective who do not want to improve their skills, who do not take part in the general movement to improve production efficiency, will be excluded not only from the distribution of remuneration, but also from the labor process that leads them to less paid work. So the dependent will become an outcast in his own team, which will force him either not to take someone else's place, or try to join the team.

5. There is no self-purification of the economy. Unprofitable and inefficient enterprises are subsidized by the state at the expense of profitable ones. Such a system leads to the stable growth of unprofitable enterprises and inevitably causes the collapse of the economy. Answering this question, it is important to turn to the legacy of I.V. Stalin, who noted that the most profitable enterprises are light industry enterprises that give the maximum profit, in other words, the production of consumer goods. At the same time, enterprises producing means of production, metallurgical, chemical, machine-building industries pay off in the long term. At the same time, it is important to remember that the greater the division of labor in the country's economy, the richer and more stable it is, therefore, only the production of consumer goods cannot give stable growth to the entire economy of the country. Moreover, the current demand crisis has shown the real significance of the orientation of the national economy to domestic demand, to the broadest division of labor, when demand can be stimulated by simple diversification of industry, switching it to meet domestic demand in the modernization of production, in the creation of new directions in industry. No one has repealed the laws of economic development, supply and demand, prices and profits, but in socialist production they carry more than a practical statistical burden. That is why long-term planning and delayed payback gives greater stability to the economy than the curtailment of production under capitalism, when profits begin to fall. But no one asked the question, what to do with people when production facilities that do not make a profit are closed. Under capitalism, they all find themselves on the street, the socialist mode of production implies the creation of new industries aimed at domestic demand. That is why state socialism is more flexible and aimed at satisfying the needs of all working people, and not a bunch of businessmen who transfer unprofitable enterprises to countries with low wages, leaving their own people to their own devices.

6. Socialism deprives a person of the right to free labor and the right to the results of his labor, which violates one of the most important natural human rights. It must be assumed that this is the right to own your own real estate, created as a result of personal achievements in business, the possibility of expanding your investments and, as a result, enjoying the results of your work, without limiting yourself to the framework of public morality. On the contrary, it is socialism that makes a person's labor truly free, since he does not need to strive to sell his labor at a higher price, entering into irreparable contradictions with the employer, who seeks to buy this labor as cheaply as possible, thereby increasing his profits. Dependence on the will of the employer, the conjuncture of demand for final products, changes in stock prices for raw materials and other "joys" of the capitalist world, make a working man not only not free, but also a slave to circumstances. The constant change in tax legislation, the cost of housing and communal services, rising prices force the worker to look for a new application of his own strength, when not satisfaction from the results of his own work drives a person, but the desire to “make ends meet”, falling into even greater dependence on the employer. The desire to enjoy the benefits received from their labor makes the working capitalist world dependent on bankers who issue loans for the purchase of goods and housing, and, consequently, to the fear of losing their jobs and the ability to pay debt interest. None of this exists under socialism, where everyone is guaranteed equal social and property rights, when no external or internal circumstances can affect the fulfillment by the state of its social obligations. Labor in a socialist state is the freest, since the worker does not solve the problem with many unknowns, adjusting his wages to the costs of his maintenance, which are secondary to social guarantees and wage growth as a result of an increase in the efficiency of labor not only of one person, but of all the team as a whole.

7. State planning and monopoly deprive citizens of the opportunity to choose goods. First of all, we need to see how this is solved in modern monopoly capitalism, because the capitalist also needs to plan the release of promising goods, know the required quantity and quality of goods, its distribution among social groups and many other factors that affect the production of goods. Statistics and planning are the same essential qualities of capitalism as they are of socialism. But in one case, the capitalist seeks to protect himself from possible mistakes in determining the prospects for various kinds of goods, often without investing significant funds in the modernization of production, as he is not sure of the amount of profit received and only changes the beautiful wrapper on the old "candy", misleading buyers. In another case, socialist planning can not only expand the range of goods produced, but reorganize production for the production of new ones, in accordance not with momentary profit, but with the most complete satisfaction of the need for a given product. It is important not to operate reporting in monetary terms, but exclusively in commodity terms, since only in this case it is possible to take into account the need and satisfaction of this need, as well as the focus of this enterprise on expanding its commodity production, which will allow the workforce to receive additional remuneration for their contribution to development economy of the entire country. Thus, the timely satisfaction of the need for various kinds of goods helps to increase the division of labor in the country, strengthening its economy.

Thus, the advantages of state socialism over the capitalist mode of production are obvious and do not require much confirmation. State socialism is deeply national and monarchical in its essence, since it is aimed, first of all, at the most complete satisfaction of all the needs of the Russian nation, the improvement and growth of national culture and traditions, the strengthening of state power and the creation of social guarantees for all, without exception, citizens of Russia. This is the only way for the further existence of our people and our country, any other way will lead us to division into parts and colonial enslavement by transnational companies, the destruction of national characteristics and the number of the Russian people. Only genuine democracy in combination with state, non-party socialism is capable of giving a powerful impetus to the development of our country and people, where the ultimate goal lies in the spiritual uplift of our entire society, in the revival of the victorious people.

The most widespread ideas of social monarchism are now in France. This is not surprising, because France was the first country to become a victim of the Moloch of the modern World. Where, under the clang of the guillotine, bastard liberal values ​​were affirmed.

Website of the French Social Monarchists

Right-wing conservatives for the most part consider any socialism some kind of leftist heresy. This comes from the pre-revolutionary right, who saw the main threat to the autocracy in the socialist movement. Meanwhile, it was not the socialists who overthrew the monarchy, but the liberals, and they overthrew it in alliance with "progressive nationalists" like Shulgin. (More on the curious phenomenon of national liberalism will be discussed below.)

However, there were also traditionalists who admitted the possibility of "right-wing socialism".

We are talking, first of all, about our remarkable thinker Konstantin Nikolaevich Leontiev, who (however incorrect it may sound) was head and shoulders above all the then conservatives. It was he who put forward the shocking formula "The Tsar at the head of the socialist movement." At one time, some figures who stood on the positions of national Bolshevism even tried to see in these words an indication of the future triumph of Stalinism. Meanwhile, in this case, Leontiev substantiated the need for the emergence of Orthodox-monarchist socialism.

He remarked: “My feeling prophesies to me that the Slavic Orthodox Tsar will someday take over the socialist movement (as Constantine of Byzantium took over the religious movement) and, with the blessing of the Church, will establish a socialist form of life in place of the bourgeois-liberal one.” The question, obviously, is that the tsar should adopt those aspects of socialism that prevent excessive mobility and liberalism. It is clear that the ideas of 1783 are incompatible with the ideas of an autocratic monarchy. Monarchist socialism is not "nihilistic rebellion and delusions of denial, but ... the legal organization of labor and capital ... a new corporate forced enslavement of human societies." This order should not harm "neither the Church, nor the family, nor the higher civilization." It is indicative that Leontiev found some socialism and communism even in the contemporary monarchy. He wrote about the combination of autocracy with the communal communism of the Russian peasantry. In addition, Leontiev compared the communist order with a monastic hostel.

By the way, the brilliant monarchist ideologist Ivan Solonevich also wrote about the socialism of pre-revolutionary Russia, who, to put it mildly, did not like socialism itself: “Imperial Russia was a country in which at that time the “socialized sector of the national economy” was larger than anywhere else in the world. The State Bank controlled all banks in Russia and had the exclusive right to issue credit notes. Most of the railways belonged to the treasury, and the remaining private roads were on the eve of the “ransom to the treasury”. The state owned huge land areas, owned factories and mines. Zemstvo medicine was delivered in a way that it has not been delivered anywhere in the world even now. Zemstvos began to build their own pharmaceutical industry - with the help of a state loan. The Russian cooperative movement was the most powerful in the world.”

This statement of Solonevich is confirmed by historians. “In Russia there was a large state sector of the economy, which included the Russian State Bank, 2/3 of the railways, a huge land fund, including 60% of forests, the military industry and many industrial enterprises in other industries,” writes A.A. Novikov. - Part of the industry remained the property of the state. State-owned enterprises were outside the sphere of market relations… State-owned factories “were not commercial establishments”, which was emphasized in official documents… The tsarist bureaucracy tried to expand the scope of state-owned entrepreneurship because of the fear that private companies might unexpectedly refuse to fulfill government orders and thus disrupt the rearmament of the army and fleet... However, the position of the state in the economy was not limited to the public sector. State orders also influenced the development of industry. Such orders were given by almost all departments, starting with the Ministry of Communications and ending with the Marine Ministry. Another area of ​​state influence was state-owned monopolies and excises, which together gave about half of the state income ... So, one part of the industry was owned by the state, the other part was subject to state regulation to one degree or another. But both of these parts remained practically outside the sphere of market relations.

By the way, on the eve of the February Revolution, it was precisely the strengthening of state-socialist principles that was outlined. “The authorities felt not only a political, but also an economic threat posed by bourgeois circles and financial-industrial groups,” writes LJ-blogger obsrvr. – The opposition called the actions of the government “state socialism”. Thus, the Ministry of Railways planned, in addition to state-owned coal and oil production, to expand its own transport engineering and create its own metallurgical plants. (Some factories were even nationalized.) Thus, the government’s idea, dating back to the beginning of 1914, of introducing five-year planning cycles for the construction of railways, ports, and large hydroelectric power stations (Dneprovskaya and Volkhovskaya, which were already built in the first Soviet five-year plans) began to be realized. The real state-socialist program was put forward by the Grand Duke Kirill Vladimirovich: “The first point ... was the general labor mobilization of the population of the Empire aged 16 to 60 years,” reports V. Khutarev-Garnishevsky. - Given the particularly difficult situation in the sale of bread and bakery products, Kirill Vladimirovich proposed a full-scale nationalization of the entire grain trade ... In addition to the above grain monopoly, the Grand Duke proposed to establish a complete monopoly on other natural resources: the extraction of metals, oil, coal and cotton, timber and sugar monopolies… The most important reform was the nationalization of all railways… Serious reforms were also proposed in the financial sector… Grand Duke Kirill Vladimirovich proposed to completely abandon the gold backing of the ruble… ... "

Of course, had it not been for the February anti-monarchist revolution carried out by nationalist generals, the big bourgeoisie and liberal politicians, Russia would have followed the path of monarchical national-state socialism. The leading role of the state, representation from syndicates, and not from parties, reliance on the mass Black Hundred organization, etc. Quite a tough policy towards the countryside - it was necessary to withdraw some resources for industrialization, not to stretch it out for many years . By the way, the surplus appraisal was introduced precisely in tsarist Russia. The idea of ​​forced seizure of grain was put forward by the Minister of Agriculture A. Rittich, who on November 29, 1916 signed a decree "On the distribution of grain bread and fodder purchased for needs related to defense."

Indeed, right-wing socialism is, first of all, precisely the practice of state building. This is a practice that has been characteristic for many centuries of Russian history. But leftist socialism, imported from the West, was, first of all, precisely the doctrine to which they tried to adapt the Russian state. This, of course, does not mean that right-wing socialism should abandon doctrinal formalization. But his doctrine must be a reflection of state practice.

Now a little bit of etymology - the word "socialism" (from the Latin word socialis - public) means the predominance of the whole (society) over the part - an individual or a group of individuals. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of models of socialism. For different countries characteristic and different models.

Russian socialism is different from communism, which involves the dissolution of the state, classes and other hierarchical structures in a kind of homogeneous commune. It also diverges from social democracy, which reduces socialism to strengthening the social control of working collectives over power and capital. Socialism in Russian is “right-wing” socialism. He subordinates the individual and social groups to the whole society, but this subordination occurs through the state. The latter acts as a guarantor and organizer of the socialization process. A specific form of subordination of a part of society to the whole society is a corporation, which is created and protected by the state. Such an order has developed in Muscovite Rus'.

Here, public (zemstvo) structures had sufficient independence, but were not at all separated from the state. Moreover, this independence did not in the least prevent these entities from performing state functions.

Take, for example, the merchant corporations of Moscow Rus'. The government listened to their opinion - and how. It was at the request of merchant associations that twice, in 1653 and 1667, trade charters were adopted that introduced very high duties on foreign goods.

But, in addition to privileges, members of merchant corporations also had heavy responsibilities. They were commercial and financial agents of the government, they bought goods that were in the state monopoly, they managed large customs offices, etc.

Merchant corporations were in the service of the state, and wealthy merchants were not only entrepreneurs, but also soldiers of the Empire, protecting national interests both inside and outside the country.

This specificity originates in ancient times, when a merchant was a kind of warrior, and a warrior was a kind of merchant. Pravda Yaroslav puts the "swordsman" and the "merchant" on the same legal level. It is curious that in the dictionary of V. Dahl the word "goods" also has the meaning of a military-merchant campaign. In the annals, the princes put their "goods" opposite the "grads". Participants of these military-trading expeditions in Ancient Rus' called "comrades". In the 13th century, this word practically fell into disuse, but was revived among the Cossacks. In the 20th century, it was adopted by the socialists, who, in their struggle against the bourgeois, unwittingly awakened some ancient archetypes.

Russian corporatism inextricably linked the state and the public. This state of affairs may seem like a manifestation of despotism, as some liberal scholars say. However, upon closer examination, all the benefits from such a combination are noticeable, especially beneficial in difficult geopolitical and climatic conditions Russia, demanding the closest consolidation of power and the public. The state, intervening in the life of a corporation, not only hampered it, but also helped it, took care of it. And the corporation facilitated the work of the state. For all that, the state did not absorb society, society did not oppose itself to the state.

It is obvious that in Russia the strengthening of freedom must be accompanied by the strengthening of statehood. As, however, and vice versa. The underestimation of this circumstance led to the collapse of all "democratic transformations", trying to strengthen society at the expense of the state, and the individual at the expense of society.

It is impossible to ignore another original zemstvo institution - the community, which was also entrusted with duties of a state nature. She was responsible for collecting taxes and doing important work. This duty was called a tax. The size of the tax imposed on each household was determined not by the number of eaters, but solely by the size of the income-generating property. Some poor families were exempted from the tax by the community - they were simply not entered in the scribe books. Non-tax community members were called "walking people", they could position themselves as they pleased and move wherever they liked. This category of persons became the most important source of replenishment of the Cossacks, which preserved the free community until 1917.

In addition, volost communities performed some judicial functions. They tried their members in all civil and some criminal cases.

The administration, appointed from above, did not interfere much in the activities of the community, monitoring only the observance of the required amount of draft duties. An example is the state of affairs in the Belozersk Territory, which was ruled by the governor of the Grand Duke Ivan III and 12 officials of a lower rank. Representatives of the Belozersky administration went to the volosts only when it was a question of major criminal offenses or territorial disputes between communities. However, in the future, the procedure for managing communities became more regular. An official appointed by the government, the “volost”, was responsible for the state of affairs in the volost. He acted in close conjunction with the village headman (“messenger”) and the zemstvo bailiff, who was directly responsible for the execution of state duties. These representatives of the community were elected at its gatherings. Without them, neither the volostels nor the governors could judge the community members and make any decisions.

Elected from the community members constituted a special body - the zemstvo hut, which functioned under the zemstvo headman - the elected head of the county. And he was chosen by the same peasants, as well as the population of urban communities. The latter retained the organization of hundreds and tens inherited from the communities of the Kievan period. The townspeople who lived on state (“black”) lands made up the so-called. Black Hundreds.

The zemstvo headman and the zemstvo hut were in charge of the municipal economy, land appropriation. She could discuss the affairs of peasants and townspeople, bringing her opinion to the governor or even to Moscow itself. The voivode had no right to interfere in the competence of zemstvo (communal) self-government bodies.

Elected from the township community took part in the activities of Zemsky Sobors, which were congresses of representatives from Russian estates and regions. The peasants were represented at the Zemsky Sobor only once, in 1613. But it was then that the cathedral elected the ancestor of the Romanov dynasty, Mikhail Fedorovich, as tsar (more precisely, he pointed to his dynastic legitimacy). And the townspeople in the future actively participated in the conciliar activities and had a huge impact on the adoption of the most important state decisions. So, the Zemsky Sobor of 1649, at the request of representatives from the township communities, included in the Code adopted by it a special chapter “On township people”.

All this refutes the conjectures of some philosophers, politicians and historians about the "Asiatic despotism" of the Moscow kingdom.

Russian tsars endowed Russian communities - associations of free farmers and artisans - with enormous powers. Another thing is that freedom in the Moscow period was inextricably linked with the strictest state discipline. This order was the most important condition for maintaining our national independence in the most difficult geopolitical conditions. At the same time, all classes, both higher and lower, were obliged to bear the state tax. The historian A. A. Kizevetter notes on this occasion: “... The entire population - from the last serf to the first boyar - turned out to be ... enslaved without the ability to freely dispose of their existence in any way ... The dependence of the peasant on the serving landowner was only a peculiar form of the peasant's service to the same state ". One can only agree with this statement, with the exception of the words about the impossibility of freely disposing of one's existence. The facts cited above indicate otherwise.

Within the land community, processes aimed at limiting its freedom were ripening. They were associated with the rapid growth of the peasant population, the allocation of an increasing number of household farms. This led to an increase in the shortage of land, which could not be fully compensated by peasant colonization. It was necessary to limit the freedom of community members in the disposal of land in order to support the land-poor and the poor.

There was a threat that the lands would be concentrated in the hands of individual wealthy owners. Then the peasants would be ruined, turning them into paupers.

This is the path Europe has taken. For economists and politicians of a liberal persuasion, such a development of events is always recognized as necessary. Some fail and go bankrupt (or even die), others, on the contrary, grow rich and prosper. As a result, economic efficiency is achieved at the expense of social injustice.

But this approach was categorically unacceptable for the Russian government. It preferred social stability to economic gain. This preference in general is one of the most important features of the Russian public consciousness, which has developed under the influence of the communal organization of the Eastern Slavs.

In the 18th century, peasants lose their freedom to dispose of their land. The practice of periodic redistribution of communal land is being introduced. The redistributions were aimed at preventing excessive inequality and providing economic resources for the poor.

Historians, for the most part opposed to redistribution, nevertheless note that they were supported by the majority of peasants. Moreover, along with the poor, many wealthy peasants also demanded redistribution. They hoped to cut off part of the land from the poor. But a reliable barrier was put up to these egoistic plans - in the person of the government, nobles and secular gatherings.

Here is how the German traveler of the 19th century A. Gakstenhausen, who, by the way, had a very big opinion about the Russian communal order, describes the redistributions: “A uniform division is naturally very difficult. The arable land consists of good, medium and bad patches - some are close, others are far, convenient for one, not for another. How to equalize all this? Of course, this is very difficult, but the Russians easily overcome this difficulty: in every community there are experienced land surveyors who have learned their work from tradition and correct it fairly and to everyone's pleasure. First, the dacha is divided into strips, depending on remoteness or proximity, according to the quality of the land and the degree of its fertilization, so that each strip is completely homogeneous with other strips in all respects. Then each of these bands is divided into as many participants as there are in the community of member-participants, and the sections are sorted by them by lot. This is the general order; but in every region, and often in every community, local customs have been established by which it is modified. It would be very interesting to collect all these features. For example, in the Yaroslavl province, there are special, extremely honorable measurements in many communities. The length of these measures corresponds to the dignity and quality of various soils, so that, for example, for the best land, the measure is the shortest; for the earth it is somewhat worse - and the measure is somewhat more authentic, and, finally, for the worst earth - and the measure is the longest. Therefore, in these communities, all plots are of different sizes, but it is precisely by this that they are equalized in their value.

By distributing the land, the community determined the procedure for the use of common lands - pastures and pastures. In addition, she also established crop rotations. It is believed that redistribution and the equalization of land use that accompanied it were almost the main obstacle to the economic development of peasant farms. However, this is an unfounded statement, not confirmed by facts, but has become a generally recognized myth. From 1861 to 1906, no redistribution was carried out in 25% of the communities. Nevertheless, neither labor productivity nor productivity stood out in the least against the general background. The development of the peasant economy was hampered mainly by the lack of technical equipment in the village.

It was to the commune and the paternalistic, socialist state that pre-revolutionary peasant Russia owed the fact that it did not have to go through the melting pot of proletarianization. Before the revolution, the development of Russia went at a rapid pace - despite the small number of the working class. Indeed, the industrial proletariat made up about a tenth of the total population. Nevertheless, Russia was in fifth place in terms of industrial development and in first place in terms of its pace. This very significantly distinguished it from the West, where the high rates of industrial growth were due to the ruin of the majority of the peasants and their transition to the ranks of the proletarians.

Russia had the opportunity to avoid proletarianization on a large scale. The community sent only a very small part of its members to the cities, who no longer wanted to engage in agricultural labor. And it turned out that their energy was quite enough for the successful industrialization of our country. Such were the wonderful qualities of the Russian workers.

It must be said that the state fight against poverty was hallmark and another Orthodox kingdom that preceded Muscovy. We are talking about Byzantium, the Roman Empire, whose culture had a huge impact on Rus'-Russia. Thus, the Byzantine emperors resolutely opposed the large landowners - the "rulers" who were attacking the peasants. The reign of Constantine Porphyrogenet and Romanus Lekapins, the imperial power took under its protection the owners of small plots. In the imperial decrees we read: “People who shamelessly seize other people's property and treat its rightful owners as slaves have risen; mighty rulers vying with each other try to do evil; they are more cruel than famine and infection.” The emperors recognized peasant plots as inalienable - they were forbidden to buy, donate, take away, exchange - under any pretext. Previously taken plots were to return to their former owners.

The Orthodox socialist G. Shimanov even considers it necessary to speak of "semi-socialist Byzantium." Moreover, he notes its gradual evolution towards capitalism, which ruined the empire. “In late Byzantium… latifundia grew, the owners of which felt like independent sovereigns on their territory. They didn't care about the empire anymore. In such an atmosphere, foreign merchants easily seized key positions in the country's economy and sucked wealth out of it. The indignation of the local population at the domination of the Italian merchants was, it seems, no less than the indignation of the robbed Russians ... The emperors themselves did not know what to do. They were captured by the dignitaries around them, capable of replacing any emperor they disliked. (It is significant that capitalization was accompanied by a weakening of autocracy).

Something similar happened with the Third Rome. Here, in parallel with the socialist way of life, there was also a capitalist way of life. It arose in the 60-90s of the XIX century, when the ruling elite of Russia relied on the private capitalist initiative and the attraction of foreign capital. Attempts were made to instill in Russia completely alien social relations based on the dominance of the individual and corporate groups. The Russian government carefully cultivated the capitalist way of life, but it was hostile to itself, and to the whole of Russia.

In 1917, the liberals, who expressed the interests of the capitalist order, destroyed the monarchy, plunging Russia into a state of chaos. A huge tragedy has occurred, the responsibility for which lies with both the left and the “right” (monarchist conservatives). The latter could not understand that socialism can be completely national and state, that, as a practice, it has long existed in Russia and now it needs to be transformed into an ideology, depriving the Trotskys and Sverdlovs of all trump cards. As a matter of fact, the outstanding conservative Konstantin Leontiev wrote about such a need. But they did not understand him and considered the idea of ​​“right-wing” socialism an incomprehensible fantasy. But only this idea could save the monarchy. However, the conservatives actually resigned themselves to national capitalism, denying the capitalists themselves only the right to political power. They won this power by using their material resources.

The bourgeoisie won power, but was unable to hold it. A certain ideological and political vacuum arose, which was filled by the socialists of the extreme, Marxist persuasion. They were the bearers of the social nihilism that arose in the West. It was there that Marx and his followers demanded the dissolution of the state and society in some kind of total commune, the elimination of power, property, the nation and the family.

It is quite obvious that such a nihilistic ideology could only have been born in liberal commercial Europe as an inadequate reaction to the appalling arbitrariness of certain individuals and groups. The European communists decided to respond to the injustice of the social structure, which was the result of individualism, by liquidating both the state and society itself. They found themselves in a socio-cultural environment completely alien to them, which then completely rejected socialism, or rather, transformed it into a moderate, market social democracy.

But Western socialism was in demand in Russia. The reason for this was the refusal of Russian statesmen to develop their own, original model of socialism. As a result, Russia transferred Marxism to its soil, which was infected with terrible intolerance. This intolerance dates back to the time of the communist medieval sects of the Cathars and Albigensians, who denied not only social, but also material existence as such.

The fury of the Western communists was caused by some kind of terrible metaphysical despair, by the understanding that the West would never abandon capitalism. The Marxists passed judgment on the entire West, on its entire society. In essence, Marxism was an ideology of suicide.

And the Russian socialists tried to impose this ideology on Russia, which had lived for centuries under socialism, which was state socialism that preserved society. Therefore, the fanatics of the “world revolution” (in fact, the universal suicide) focused all the ancient fury of European nihilism on the Russian state and Russian society. Hence the Red Terror, the Russophobia of the 1920s, and collectivization.

Here it is necessary to touch on one common misconception. It is believed that Soviet socialism was state. At the same time, it is forgotten that everything was controlled by the ideocratic CPSU - a very specific part of society. She used powerful state levers for completely utopian purposes. The clearest example is the altruistic support of various "brotherly" regimes and parties around the world, which seriously undermined the Soviet economy. Stalin tried to strengthen precisely the statist (and “medieval”) principles in Soviet socialism, but after his death this process was practically curtailed.

Meanwhile, even now state socialism has not taken shape in a doctrine, has not become a powerful ideological and political force. And here's a coincidence - the right-wing, Russian traditionalists themselves did not become such a force. They wonder why there is still no real right-wing party in Russia? And what is there to be surprised about - it does not exist because the rightists themselves do not think of any alternative to this godless and rootless cosmopolitanism that is eating up the whole world. Why, one wonders, should the people support politicians who completely ignore the issues of the social system (or even take frankly national-capitalist positions)?

So it turns out that the role of a false alternative is played by the left (communists and social democrats). And they proceed from a completely wrong (moreover, twice wrong in Russia) message that it is society that should dominate the state.

Strange as it may seem, but the role of the State Socialist Party, although very badly, but with much greater success than all other political forces, is performed by the presidential vertical and the groups of top officials behind it. If the left admits the possibility of a parliamentary republic and the predominance of society over the state, then the notorious vertical is not going to give power to parliament and big business. Moreover, even some semblance of state capitalism is being built, which is close to state socialism (the bureaucracy is trying to concentrate as much property as possible in its hands).

Well, this should not be surprising either, because the bureaucracy, no matter how "corrupt" it may be, is still engaged in the practice of state building. And this is in Russia, like it or not, but it leaves its own very definite imprint. In principle, the current system can be called semi-capitalism. That is why he is criticized in the West, and the most consistent Russian Western liberals talk about the “Putin Chekist dictatorship”.

Another thing is that for the time being the existence of large, oligarchic capital is allowed, which will always strive to seize political power. He can hide for a while, hide his intentions. But as soon as the crisis begins in the country, big tycoons will have their say. And it can be assumed that this word will be spoken against the state.

At one time, the pre-revolutionary right (and the monarchist state itself) had already burned themselves on this problem. One of the most prominent economists of the right camp - Sharapov - argued that the monarchists do not want to deprive the capitalists of anything but the opportunity to seize political power. But it was precisely the huge capitals of the then oligarchs that pushed them to take this very power. At some level of accumulation, capitalists are already bored and cramped in the space of material prosperity allotted to them. Still, man is a being more political than economic (politics is higher than economics). Therefore, no matter how the oligarch is imbued with the spirit of the bourgeoisie, he still wants to play on the political field and become not only the owner of property, but also the owner of power. That is why all these Ryabushins, who flourished under the autocracy, began to support the liberal opposition. And they did achieve their goal, although it cost many of them property, and even their lives.

By the way, the role of the big bourgeoisie in the overthrow of the monarchy usually somehow escapes the attention of monarchists, although they always look very closely at the circumstances of the February tragedy. Anyone is declared guilty - Freemasons, Jews, nobles, liberals, the West, the generals, the intelligentsia. And only the bourgeoisie for some reason always comes out dry from the water that spills during these historical studies. Sometimes they "apply" Jewish capital, clearly trying to reduce everything to the notorious "Jewish Masonic conspiracy." But then what about the fact that in the ranks of the liberal conspirators were many, many real Russian merchants, many of whom were also Old Believers?

The answer to this question suggests itself as follows - any big capital is anti-national, it is subject to oligarchic degeneration and leads the whole thing towards liberal democracy. (It is significant that big German capital, which supported the Nazis, did not shy away from cooperating with American and other plutocratic schemers. Krupps and Thyssens actively pushed Hitler to a suicidal war with Stalin's Russia, which was beneficial only to Anglo-American businessmen. Thus, Thyssen sharply and openly opposed the Soviet-German pact of 1939. Finally, it is noteworthy that even in the paternalistic Third Reich, monopolies continued to ruin small businesses.As a result of the policy of forced cartelization, about 700 handicraft enterprises disappeared from the economic arena in 1933-1939. the influence of monopolies increased.By 1939, 6 large banks and 70 joint-stock companies controlled 2/3 of the industrial potential of Germany.)

If only traditionalist soilmen really want to recreate (on a new level) historical Russia, then they need to come out openly for national, state socialism. Under such socialism, an honest, open autocracy (autocracy is best) will be combined with a powerful system of social protection, public property and a planned economy. Only a strong one-man power, independent of various (bourgeois and bureaucratic) oligarchies, will be able to protect the interests of all social groups and truly unite society.

The main provisions of monarchical socialism can be formulated as follows:

1. The autocratic state stands above society, regulating the relationship between different groups and not allowing any of them to oppress the other. One of the forms of such regulation is the establishment of a certain ceiling for capital growth. The state implements various social programs involving all private entrepreneurs.

2. The autocratic state does not suppress the initiative of public structures, but, on the contrary, encourages all original associations - urban and rural communities, professional associations. Moreover, it is these associations (rather than party politicians) that form the bodies of local self-government, which has broad prerogatives, as well as the All-Russian legislative assembly.

3. The autocratic state actively intervenes in the economy, carrying out directive, mandatory planning. At the same time, the planning targets themselves are drawn up taking into account the opinions of all enterprises and, with their active participation. In addition, the state is the sole, monopoly owner of all finances and provides interest-free lending.

4. The autocratic state does not strive for the total nationalization of the economy, although it occupies commanding positions in it. Like original public associations, it supports original economic structures. Such structures include, for example, an artel, which was based on public property.