The Science Work
History
Site is for sale: mail@thesciencework.com
Category: History

The lost chance of Russia?



11. Fedotov G.P. Stalinokratiya//G.P. Fedotov. Destiny and sins the Russia / Elite of article on philosophy of the Russian history and culture: In 2 volumes. - SPb.: Sofia, 1991. - T. 2. - Page 83-97.

12. Fedotov GP. Russia, Europe and we//Fedotov GP. Destiny and sins the Russia / Elite of article on philosophy of the Russian history and culture: In 2 volumes. - SPb.: Sofia, 1991. - T 2. - Page 3-14.
13. V.V. Zenkovsky. History of the Russian philosophy. - L.: EGO, 1991. - T. 2. - Part 2. - 269 pages
14. G.P. Fedotov. Social value of Christianity//G.P. Fedotov. About sanctity, the intellectuals and the Bolshevism. - SPb.: Publishing house St. Petersburg un-that, 1994. - Page 50-78.
15. G.P. Fedotov. Tomorrow (Letters on the Russian culture)//Fedotov G.P. Sudba and sins the Russia / Elite of article on philosophy of the Russian history and culture: In 2 volumes. - SPb.: Sofia, 1991. - T. 2. - Page 188-205.
16. Fedotov GP. Russian religiousness of Part 1. Christianity of Kievan Rus'//G.P. Fedotov. Collected works in 12 t. - M, 2001. - T 10. - 382 pages
17. M. Castells. Information era: economy, society and culture: Transl. from English under nauch. edition of O.I. Shkaratan. - M.: GU HSE, 2001. - 608 pages
18. G.P. Fedotov. Cultural shifts//the Chosen articles on philosophy of the Russian history and culture: In 2 volumes. - SPb.: Sofia, 1991. - T. 2. - Page 98-102.
19. G.P. Fedotov. A lawsuit about Russia//the Chosen articles on philosophy of the Russian history and culture: In 2 volumes. - SPb.: Sofia, 1991. - T. 2. - Page 103-121.
20. Fedotov GP. Pushkin and liberation of Russia//Fedotov G.P. Sudba and sins of Russia//Fedotov G.P. Sudba and sins the Russia / Elite of article on philosophy of the Russian history and culture: In 2 volumes. - SPb.: Sofia, 1991. - T. 2. - Page 129-132.
21. G.P. Fedotov. About humanity Pushkina//G.P. Fedotov. Destiny and sins the Russia / Elite of article on philosophy of the Russian history and culture: In 2 volumes. - SPb.: Sofia, 1991. - T. 2. - Page 328-332.
22. G.P. Fedotov is a singer of the empire and freedom//Fedotov G.P. Sudba and sins the Russia / Elite of article on philosophy of the Russian history and culture: In 2 volumes. - SPb.: Sofia, 1991. - T. 2.

>- Page 141-162.

23. G.P. Fedotov. New fatherland//Fedotov of GP. Destiny and sins the Russia / Elite of article on philosophy of the Russian history and culture: In 2 volumes. - SPb.: Sofia, 1991. - T. 2. - Page 233-252.
24. G.P. Fedotov. Fate of empires//Fedotov GP. Destiny and sins the Russia / Elite of article on philosophy of the Russian history and culture: In 2 volumes. - SPb.: Sofia, 1991. - T. 2. - Page 304-326.
25. G.P. Fedotov. Protection of Russia//Fedotov G.P. Sudba and sins the Russia / Elite of article on philosophy of the Russian history and culture: In 2 volumes. - SPb.: Sofia, 1991. - T. 2. - Page 122-125.
26. G.P. Fedotov. A new idol//Fedotov of G.P. Sudba and sins the Russia / Elite of article on philosophy of the Russian history and culture: In 2 volumes. - SPb.: Sofia, 1991. - T. 2. - Page 50-65.
27. G.P. Fedotov. Federation and Russia//Fedotov G.P. Sudba and sins the Russia / Elite of article on philosophy of the Russian history and culture: In 2 volumes. - SPb.: Sofia, 1991. - T. 2. - Page 228-232.

UDC 9(S)17-03

The LOST CHANCE of RUSSIA?

A.V. Lutsenko

Seversk state Institute of Technology of E-mail: kon@ssti.ru

Evolution of the Russian liberal ideology of the end of the XX century is considered, the historical link of reforms of the 1990th to a vesternizatsionny paradigm of the Russian liberation movement of the second half of the 19th century is estimated, Marxist "roots" of process of a westernisation of the Russian Empire are traced, K. Marx's position on questions of modernization of the Russian economy and about a role of community in development of the country is stated.

The condition of the Russian society at the end of the XX century can be characterized as extremely contradictory. The originality of a situation was defined by two moments:

1. On the one hand, the refusal of ideological ensuring the undertaken reforms was persistently declared, and it was explained by an old idiosyncrasy of the population to everything that was associated with a totalitarian political regime and authoritative intervention of the state in all spheres of public life. The whole country recognized apologists of liberalization of social institutes by sight and could list by name, and their position was met on mass meetings by general triumph which was treated as "ecstasy by freedom", "a holiday of freedom of thought and

words, freedom of choice and actions". Scientists, writers, engineers, economists, journalists, lawyers, actors were at the head of this holiday, - a word, all intellectual elite which hotly and with deep arguments branded the Soviet system and Marxism as the misanthropic phenomena. Any ideology was perceived as means of pressure upon public consciousness as angrily with which did not want to be reconciled any more.

2. On the other hand, against the background of it "ecstasies freedom" and the stated refusal of an ideological zadannost chronically found out themselves in real life objectively fixed signs of the fact that it is considered to be ideology with all its conceptual parameters. The Doctor of Philosophy Akop Nazaretyan noted curious being -

telstvo: during the Perestroika period, it seems, that lost any meaning "the mental scheme" which was developed by collective consciousness for the Soviet period. However in the 1990s it turned out that "all its cells are filled with new contents. Class "they - we" it is replaced with the national; bright future communistic - on bright future capitalist: the last effort - will also begin prosperity; earlier as terrible the past of tsarist Russia, now - the communistic past was perceived. All cells in stereotypic thinking quickly are filled with new contents, thus that the scheme remains the same" [1]. Besides, along with requirements of liberalization of all parties of public life naturally and unostentatiously the concept of the free economic competition possible only in the conditions of the capitalist relations which mechanism much seemed extremely simple was entered in the general scheme of the declared liberal changes: to give factories, the plants, the trade and service enterprises, etc. to labor collectives. But that it did not appear deprived, "somehow to consider the interests of all military, teachers, officials which means of labor were excluded from sharing, and "national privatization"" [2] with cheques payable to a named person which guaranteed to citizens the worthy level of the vital benefits was thought up. The conceived reform was presented as a panacea. At the beginning of it assessment of property of all economic complex of the country was provided, and the sequence of the actions preceding "national privatization" was stated in the HECTARE program. Yavlinsky "500 days". George Soros, having studied this program, declared, "that for the country it is the only way of rescue, and told about Yavlinsky: "He is as ingenious as I"" [3]. There were also other programs of reforming of the Russian economy during which implementation the general, understood as "draw", property would find the legal owners. Citizens of the huge country patiently listened to speeches of reformers, understanding a little, than privatization "according to Yavlinsky" differed from privatization "according to Gaidar", "according to Chubais", but laid the hopes for competence and decency of reformers.

The society lulled by promises of the bright capitalist future fondly believed that with enormous material, natural and human resources it is worse to live in the country, than lived, - it is impossible therefore with passive bewilderment looked at transient disappearance both the stability and an order, and guarantees of that flashing as if in a kaleidoscope, changes will be positive for all. "Ecstasy" came to an end in freedom when citizens of the USSR found out that their state, falling in a non-existence, brought down for itself a habitual way of life. Reorganization came to the end with "shock therapy" and sme-

ache misters when A.B. Chubais "achieved replacement of personalized privatization checks with vouchers which can be sold and bought" [2]. If personalized privatization checks gave everyone

>- young and old - the right for an equal share of cumulative profit on all industries of state farm, the voucher initially represented for economically semiliterate population something like a counter in casino where the chance - "will carry - will not carry", "you will have - you will not have" - made fifty on fifty, and in freezing conditions of deposits, non-payments of salary and accruing inflations and unemployment really decreased to zero also because "under vouchers to the people allocated to property for 150 billion rubles in the prices of 1991, and distributed no more than ten percent. The rest was FREE OF CHARGE taken themselves, in holdings" [4]. In the state holdings, controlling stakes of the semi-privatized enterprises [4] were transferred, and in Russia suddenly there were superrich people, generally from among those who close stood to the country leaders. Found to themselves lucrative posts as well "former" in power. So, in March, 1993 Yeltsin signed the decree on creation of Gosincor - the state corporation which, besides sale of strategic raw materials, was engaged also in insurance of investments upon "political" risks. Gosincor gratuitously received the building in the center of Moscow, 200 billion rubles and 50 million dollars in the authorized capital and 1 billion dollars - in mortgage fund. The former head of administration of Yeltsin Yury Petrov headed Gosincor [4]. Approximately on the same conditions were open Russian Financial Corporation headed by the former Minister of Economics of the Russian Federation A. Nechayev, TIROSS (Technologies and investments in Russia) which was headed by the former minister of the industry A. Titkin, Interprivatization fund under the leadership of V. Scherbakov - the former Deputy Prime Minister of the last government of the USSR. Rich funds opened as well in the State Property Committee, and at Gaidar's Institute, etc., etc. [4]. The national rumor fairly named this process "grab-it-isation". The reformers who came to the power under the guise of "national privatization" appointed each other capitalists and, disowning from Marxist ideology, declared themselves successors of the ideas of the Russian liberalism of the end of XIX - the beginnings of the XX century.

However if to plunge into the history of Russia of that period, then the paradoxical situation will be found: the liberals of tsarist Russia captivated by progress of the prospering Europe found an ideological match to the aspirations... on pages of "Capital". They and wrote then: "The Marxism managed to prove need & lt theoretically;...> the constitutional system" and to investigate transition mechanisms "to modern exchange industrial monetary economy" [5]. Both liberals, and social democrats of Russia defined mark-

a sizm as "the" program ideology also cooperated up to the II congress of RSDRP. Consolidated them the "common cause" understood as preparation of public opinion for inevitability of broad capitalization of "wild" and "lapotny" Russia: without dispossession of land of peasants not to happen in Russia to a free capitalist system (that is important for the liberal bourgeoisie), not to happen also to mighty working class - the grave-digger of exploiters (that was for the benefit of social democrats). A push to development of bright future the Russian liberal social democrats called transition "from natural, mainly agricultural, life" [5] to industrial economy, "extermination of the old, rotten community" [6], it "medieval stuff" [7], i.e. both those, and others connected the beginning of implementation of the programs with expropriation of collective ownership of peasants of Russia.

That process of dismissal from means of production and transformation into hired workers can concern 85% of the population of the country and lead to unpredictable consequences, during this period the Russian theorists reformers just did not take into account. And later the analysis of the causes of revolution, civil war and 70 years' existence of a totalitarian system a little similar to socialist did not include mass expropriation of peasants as the main cause of accident which comprehended the country. Perhaps, therefore reformers of the 1990th so fearlessly decided to repeat historical experiment and to carry out new expropriation of all population of the country in accelerated - "shock" - speed.

However in Russia Marx had no relation to catastrophic events. Besides, he did not find it possible to use theoretical provisions of "Capital" in the Russian practice. This opinion arose at Marx in 1877 and became stronger in the next years thanks to "special researches". Previously having learned Russian, he for 8 years purposefully investigated economic and historical conditions of Russia on primary sources. It would seem, for receiving representations was to study the messages about a condition of finance and agriculture in the country made by N.F. Danilevsky, the Russian economist enough especially as these messages were based on comparison of official statistics and territorial data. But Marx wanted to have a volume idea of economic structure of the country therefore he in parallel analyzed also conclusions of the IV release of the "Military and statistical collection" published by the Russian General Staff studied 10 volumes of "Works of the podatny commission" and "The arch of responses of provincial presence on country affairs". In addition, Marx with great attention treated monographs and scientific research of prominent Russian economists

XIX century. In the course of development of the specified subject

Marx addressed as well "The history of the state Russian" N.M. Karamzina, and "Historical monographs and researches" of N.I. Kostomarov, and N.G. Chernyshevsky, M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin's works. In detail, doing marks and extracts, Marx investigated works of scientists

>- Semevsky "Peasants in reign of the empress Catherine II", Isaeva of "Artel in Russia", Vorontsov "Fate of capitalism in Russia", Skre-bitsky "Country business and Alexander II's reign", Golovacheva "Ten years of reform. 1861-1871", Jansson "Experience of a statistical research about country plots and payments", Skaldina "In a remote place and the capital", Gakstgauzena "The rural device of Russia", Patlayevsky "The money market in Russia from 1700 to 1762", Kablukova "An essay of economy of private land owners", Kowalewski "Communal land ownership, the reasons, the course and consequences of its decomposition" [8]. In a word, Marx comprehensively studied a problem subject of Russia. Marx had many literature on economic and social situation of this country: he allocated it especially, having called "Russishes in my bookshelf" ("Russian on my bookshelf") [8]. Without having satisfied with studying books from this shelf, he specified the obtained information during the personal meetings with P.L. Lavrov, Daniyelson, Kowalewski, Duck, Gartman, Morozov, Girsh and others, conducted active correspondence with many of them including with V.V. Bervi-Flerovsky who lived in exile in the Siberian Tomsk and whose book "Position of working class in Russia" the German scientist highly appreciated, having put it in one row with the same research F. Engels about a fate of the English proletariat [9]. Judgment of two-volume work of A.I. Vasilchikov "Land tenure and agriculture in Russia and other European states", as well as all listed above works, went through comparison to data of the Western European scientists. Analysis of researches GP. Maurer, Mr. Hansen, F. Demelich, O. Uteshno-vich, St. Yanchini, J. Manya, J. Fir, U. Carlton, G. Meyn, F. Kardenas, L. Kremaz devoted to studying agricultural community in the countries of Europe and in India demanded expansion of knowledge of world history, and Marx for obtaining information on a role of country community in the history of the people of all European continent, about the reasons and conditions of destruction it during decomposition of feudalism used the actual material what found in 18-volume "World history" of Shlosser, in "the History of Russia" Kelly, in "The history of Russia and Peter the Great" Segyura, in works of Bot, Kobbet and other famous Western European historians [8]. Emergence of four notebooks of "Chronological extracts" Marx about 105 printed pages [8] was result of study and comparative analysis of events of the all-European scale from the 1st century BC till the 17th century AD.

Historical data strengthened the scientist in a thought that agricultural communities - owners of collective land property

>- were not the cause of backwardness of the countries and perished not because became obsolete, not as a result of capitulation before an impact of progressive changes: all of them died "violent death" [10] because of external and internal wars or as it was in the East Indies where "destruction of communal land ownership was only the act of the English vandalism pushing the native people not forward, and back" [10] - to irreversible social and physiological degradation. Extent of this degradation directly depended on speed and scale of destructions: than more population was captured by a communal order and the more suddenly it was exposed to pernicious influence, the more tragic for all nation there were consequences, up to its disappearance from a face of Earth.

The Russian liberal social democrats, counting on development of the fatherland in the Western European sample, did not consider this circumstance though Marx wrote Russians three times: its doctrine stated in "Capital" should not use as "a universal master key" [11] because the result of expropriation of peasants depends not on correctness of the choice of the theory, and on historical conditions [11]; the communal land ownership forms a basis not of backwardness, but revival of Russia [12, 11]. Russia does not need the western way, otherwise "it will miss the best opportunity which history ever provided to any people" [11]. More detailed explanation of these positions of Marx remained in draft sketches of the response letter to Vera Zasulich [10] where Marx focused attention on historical features of Russia. If to compare it to the Western European states, then "in Western Europe death of communal land ownership and the birth of capitalist production are separated from each other by the enormous period covering a number of consecutive economic revolutions and evolutions from which capitalist production is only the closest to us" [10]. Ruin of the peasantry had stage-by-stage character. Besides mass expropriation of land owners fell on time of an urbanization of Europe when ranks of the peasantry already thinned so that governors could neglect their interests bravely. And still, despite so softened option, the period of economic withdrawal pains nevertheless remained in historical memory of Europeans as time of the hardest test: the capitalist way of production was approved on distress of thousands of ruined farmers who learned torments of unemployment, poverty, hunger and moral degradation. In Russia in a similar situation there can be not thousands, but tens of millions of people because to country estate which the Russian reformers for -

to expropriate teyal, 85% of the population belong. The danger of destructive consequences in this case repeatedly increases, and this country is expected by accident of unprecedented scales. When reformers of the 19th century declare that they want to make happy the people which "on wildness" do not understand either the benefit, or what to eradicate the outdate "Asian forms" of economy and "to reduce an agony" "decrepit" community the Russian government and new "pillars of society" is "good deed" as though it is "simply about the enemy who should be broken" [10], actually, according to Marx, ", in what hands political and social forces, do everything possible to prepare masses for such accident" [10] as bloody revolution, like the senseless and ruthless revolt breaking everything and all on the way. Not without reason Karl Marx when reading "Historical monographs and researches" N.I. Kostomarov paid special attention to Stepan Razin's revolt, having made kommentirovanny extracts about this event of the Russian history [8].

The Russian reformers tuned into capitalization of the country solved everything for all without opinion of the main supporter of Russia. They did not consider and the fact that not any expropriation of farmers will lead to a celebration of a capitalist system. Marx reminded of the fate of plebeians of Ancient Rome: "during the Roman history" some peasants lost everything, "except the labor", and others became owners of "all acquired riches". But "the Roman proletarians became not hired workers, but idle common people & lt;...> not the capitalist, but slaveholding way of production" developed [10]. As well as why it occurred, Marx's pupil Karl Kautsky in the research "Origin of Christianity" analyzed later. The scientist-historian wrote that the beginning of antique economic process, really, strikes with the external similarity to the period of emergence of modern European capitalism: in either case a basis of changes is expropriation - robbery of the majority by minority. But further the similarity disappears: "if the modern capitalist is characterized by passion for accumulation of the capital, then the notable Roman of times of the Empire & lt;...> distinguishes passion for pleasure" [13]. The reasons of this dissimilarity should be looked for in how owners of two eras disposed of the riches. The modern capitalist is forced to make the saved-up investments in improvement and expansion of production, "if he does not want to be defeated in the field of the competition" [13] where everything is solved by higher performance of the enterprises, their technical equipment. These cares were not necessary to the antique rich man because he saw the participation in economic process only in replacement of worn-out instruments of labor by others of the same sample and also in on -

Kupka of the cattle and slaves whose works all economy kept. Other means "could be used by slaveholders on the personal pleasures & lt;...>. Than more surpluses & lt increased;. & gt; squandering of these surpluses became that more primary social function of ruling classes, subjects desire to surpass each other by luxury, gloss, idleness & lt inflamed more;. & gt;. Near them there lived hundreds of thousands of free citizens & lt;. & gt; they economically were excess people in society & lt;...>. Antique lumpen proletariat & lt;...> it was not necessary at all and could disappear without any danger to society & lt;. & gt;. It did not work at all and did not want to work. He demanded participation in pleasures of rich men, he tried to obtain other distribution not of means of production, and means of pleasure, robbery of the rich, but not change of a way of production" [13]. Such society in the development could not but reach a deadlock and eventually became delicious production of other people. Most at the same time lost those who had more.

But there is more to come. There is one more reason for which in Russia "the western precedent & lt;...> does not prove absolutely nothing" [10]: Russia is the only European country in which the agricultural community remained "across the nation", "as nearly dominating form of national life throughout the huge empire" [10]. When carrying out expropriation the conversation in this country will go not about change of types of a private property as it occurred in Europe, and "about replacement with the capitalist property of property communistic" [10] (my italics - A.L.) that is equivalent to turn from social progress to social regress. Otherwise how to explain the fact that in countries of Western Europe where capitalism was already approved, the people fight for what in Russia historically developed naturally? In the slogans the proletarians of the western countries demand to replace "capitalist production with production cooperative and capitalist property - the highest form of archaic type of property, i.e. property communistic" [10].

If and to carry on a conversation about progressive changes in life of such huge agricultural power as Russia, then at a view of a situation "from purely economic point of view" [10] conclusion could be only one: changes should be begun with rendering organizational, intellectual and material support to the most powerful productive force of the country. Instead, contrary to economic feasibility, the state "at the expense of peasants & lt;...> fostered those industries of the western capitalist system which, without developing productive opportunities of agriculture at all, especially promote easier and fast plunder

its fruits unproductive intermediaries. It promoted, thus, enrichment of a new capitalist parasite who exhausted already become scanty blood of "rural community" [10]. The fact that in Russia killed "golden goose" [10] - was clear how day: "average figures for the last ten years show not only stagnation, but even falling of agricultural production & lt;. & gt;. For the first time in Russia it is necessary to import bread instead of taking out it" [10]. The tsar, the government and liberally adjusted social movements just do not know that to do with a huge mass of the ruined people: "the community crushed by extortion of the state, robbed by dealers, exploited by landowners, undermined from within by usurers" [10] was a constant reproach for all society which was so long living "into the account of rural community" [10] and wished to find without loss for itself fast solution of the problems. The example of the advanced West learned: "it is necessary to create the middle rural class from more or less wealthy minority of peasants" [10] that it undertook a burden of taxes, and "to turn other mass of poor farmers simply into proletarians" [10], having provided new and old misters with cheap labor. Not revolutionary propagandists, namely "the Russian government and "new pillars of society" do everything possible to prepare masses" [10] for revolution accident while Russia needs absolutely other revolution - not for the sake of dictatorship of the proletariat, not for the sake of repartition of property and as the emergency way of elimination from the power of those governors who dullly direct the country "exsanguinate and torment community" [10] that the Russian society, "as soon as government fetters will be dumped" [10], could use fully and purposefully the material and intellectual potential on the organization of gradual transformation of life of peasants, having begun "with putting community in normal position on its present basis" [10], and the collective ownership was its basis.

However did not listen to Marx and led Russia not to "management revolution", and to revolution accident. Other also could not be at that general policy of a tsarism including fiscal which gained the nature of predatory extortion. The data of the Commission for revision of a system of taxes and the Agricultural commission analyzed by Marx demonstrate that "the former landowner serfs paid to the budget of the country from the income from agriculture 198.25% so they had to give to the government not only all the income from the earth, but to give almost as much from earnings which they received for different works & lt;...> others" [14]. At the same time landowners-land owners of taxes did not pay the state at all. Besides, they did not repay

debts on mortgages which in 1877 grew to 366.5 million rubles [14] at revenues of the Russian budget in 548 million [14]! By the beginning of 1878 in Russia all debts to treasury reached already 470 million rubles; the debt of peasants was only 6.9% of them (i.e. only 32.5 million) [14]. Paying all extortionate taxes and all debts assigned to them, peasants were massively ruined. And newspapers dazzled with aggressive statements of "admirers of a capitalist system" [10]: "Who lives in misery and does not wish to work, - the leader extreme right N.E. Markov, - that the place not on freedom, and in prison went on in the public statements, or they have to be extorted from the state at all, it are drunkards or idlers" [15]. It was echoed also by others: "It is necessary to destroy a third of the people, then there will be enough earth for all" [16]. It is important to note that these speeches sounded after the revolutionary events of 1905 when the westernized elite defied that millions of uneducated peasants allegedly do not even understand that they with them do, and lead primitive indifferent life. Marx as if expected similar interpretation of passivity of a people at large therefore placed in the records emphasis that the condition of psychological frustration of the people of Russia actually will be not a consequence of rustic dullness, but a natural result of immoral policy of the authorities: "Try to take away over a certain measure from peasants a product of their agricultural work - and, despite your gendarmerie and your army, you will not manage to chain them to their fields" [10]. It is a "silent" protest which means that rustic mood "The earth and will!" it was not calmed down. "Fermentation" left deep into, new explosion is inevitable. But peasants "intelligently" will be at war now: "Which dymokrata, little men, so we will begin to beat belokrat - you, misters. Absolutely we will select all earth and we will pay nothing" [16].

Marx proved that quite so and business will turn back if not to replace the immoral power, but was forced to note: "Russians with whom I maintain the personal relations adhere, as far as I know, to absolutely opposite views" [10]. Only later - the truth, already after the fact, after the revolution accident, being in emigration, - they were forced to recognize that destruction of the Russian community, this special world order, has pernicious effect on destiny not only the countries, but also their personal destiny. The conclusions of emigrants reformers similar to overdue enlightenment and repentance put end under their attempts to interfere roughly with historical process without understanding that "society does not become and is not established by people and to be created like organic beings, growing from the past" [17] that "the state cannot reconstruct by magic on any cliche, on

any theoretical scheme" [18] that "revolutions & lt;...> with a mad dream to start life anew & lt;...> are punished by either death of society, or exposure of the powerlessness and the lie" [17].

If these thoughts in due time visited re-formatorov-liberal of the end of XIX - the beginning of the 20th centuries, then, maybe, Russia really would not miss the unique chance given it by history. As for the liberal reformers of our time, they led Russia on the same way, as liberals of the 19th century, considering that in a failure of democratic market transformations of the beginning

XX centuries are guilty Bolsheviks with their misanthropic Marxist ideology. But whom to accuse now that the idea of "national capitalism" and remained just the idea? The statement of some liberal pragmatists that a part of the population still lives the Soviet stereotypes and therefore cannot adapt to conditions of the market competition, look methodologically insolvent as "unadapted" about one third of able-bodied population of the country with industrial structure of production is among. If critically to comprehend history lessons, then when owing to the liberal reforms of the tsarist government one third of communal property was expropriated, and 3 million country families were obezzemelenny and deprived of means of livelihood (Bolsheviks were not in power yet!), revolutionary events of 1917 became a result of it. And when in Russia one third of the population appeared below the poverty line and the second wave of expropriation began an August default of 1998, B.N. Yeltsin was simply forced to resign "voluntarily". Out of harm's way.

This leaving laid the foundation for the birth of new ideology. It did not receive accurate, similar to the political program, registration yet. However the main element of this ideology, certainly, is the aspiration of the government to stabilize a social system to prevent repetition of catastrophic scenarios of the past - naturally, adjusted for technical and economic realities of our time. The slightest violation of the existing fragile balance of public forces in favor of liberal pragmatists can lead the country to social explosion like spring of 1917; and on the contrary - any concessions of the power to requirements of the expropriated majority are fraught with repetition of repressions of 1937. Thus, the modern ideology as a first approximation can be characterized as the strategy of saving of society. Whether it will be ideology of the valid revival of Russia

>- time will show.

LIST OF REFERENCES

1. Person and aggression (round table)//Social sciences and present. - 1993. - No. 2. - Page 92-105.
2. E. Yasin. About advantage of doubt//the Banner. - 1994. - No. 9. - Page 171-174.
3. Cormorants of. Where pies//the Banner are more magnificent. - 1994. - No. 9. - Page 184-185.
4. L. Piyasheva. The lost chance//the Banner. - 1994. - No. 9. - Page 154-170.
5. A. Izgoyev. Russian society and revolution. - M.: Russian thought, 1910. - 275 pages
6. V. Lenin. Several comments on Maslov's "answer"//Complete works of V.I. Lenin. the 5th prod. - T. 17. - Page 256-270.
7. V. Lenin. An agrarian question in Russia by the end of the 19th century//Complete works of V.I. Lenin. the 5th prod. - T. 17. - Page 57-137.
8. Dates of life and K. Marx and F. Engels's activity (March, 1875 - May, 1883)//K. Marx and F. Engels's Compositions. the 2nd prod. T. 19. - M.: Gospolitizdat, 1961. - Page 597-626.
9. E. Burmakin. Last utopian//the Siberian Athens. - 1990.

>- No. 1 (April). - Page 8-9.

10. K. Marx. Sketches of the reply to the letter V.I. Zasulich//K. Marx and F. Engels's Compositions. the 2nd prod. - T. 19. - M.: Gospolitizdat, 1961. - Page 400-421.
11. K. Marx. Letter to the editorial office of the Otechestvennye Zapiski magazine//K. Marx and F. Engels's Compositions. the 2nd prod. - T. 19. - M.: Gospolitizdat, 1961. - Page 116-121.
12. K. Marx. Letter V.I. Zasulich//K. Marx and F. Engels's Compositions. the 2nd prod. T. 19. - M.: Gospolitizdat, 1961. - Page 250-251.
13. K. Kautsky Proiskhozhdeniye Christianity. - M.: Politizdat, 1990. - 463 pages
14. K. Marx. Notes about reform of 1861 and post-reform development of Russia//K. Marx and F. Engels's Compositions. the 2nd prod. T. 19. - M.: Gospolitizdat, 1961. - Page 422-441.
15. State Duma. The third convocation: Verbatim record. The second session. Part 1. - SPb., 1908. - 154 pages
16. M. Menshikov. Peasants and Duma//Modern times. - 1908. On June-21, on September 2.
17. Page franc. Religious bases of the public//Way.-1925. - No. 1. - Page 14-29.
18. I. Petrunkevich. From notes of the public figure//Archive of the Russian revolution. - 1934. - T. 21. - 411 pages
Sharon Lily
Other scientific works: