Looking ahead, it is necessary to say that this article is not about the past, as it may seem at first, but about the very present, which is simply impossible to understand, without understanding how the situation has historically developed and why we have exactly what what have come now. And also, according to the well-known principle of the development of history “in a spiral,” one can make a fairly realistic forecast of development in the near future from the events of the past, and even try to avoid the mistakes made by our predecessors. It is for this purpose that the whole historical excursion is given below, although in an extremely, it seems to me, primitive and shortened version.
Recently, Russia, and probably the whole Orthodox world in general, solemnly celebrated the 1030th anniversary of the baptism of Russia.
It is clear that with a look at the event a thousand years ago, various disputes arise both on a specific date and during the process itself - this is completely unsurprising. By the nature of my main interests, I mainly deal with the history of the Second World War, and each time, delving into a topic in detail, I never cease to be surprised how little and often distorted our idea of events that took place just over half a century ago, and this is in the presence of a huge masses of original documents, photos and film materials, and even living witnesses, so what can we say about a period of a thousand years or more ... But despite the existing and periodically voiced different interpretations in dates and reading, the very fact of this ytiya beyond doubt as is no doubt the fact that the value of the Baptism of Russia for the entire subsequent history of Russia and other Orthodox nations speaking Vladimir Putin's words, "is difficult to overestimate." That is, by and large, the main thing is that Christianity and Orthodoxy in the Russian lands were nevertheless adopted, this does not raise any doubts, and if it’s plus or minus a day, a year or even a couple of decades, then within the past millennium it’s from my personal point of view, it no longer plays a special role, the only question is to establish a certain specific date when to mark this event itself, that’s all ...
But even if you follow the officially accepted date of the holiday, on July 28, 988, in fact, it was not Rus, as such, and not even the Kiev principality of Prince Vladimir Svyatoslavich, but only the prince himself that was baptized. Further, the process of the transition of the peoples then inhabiting the east of Europe from paganism to Christianity was quite long, painful and far from always voluntary. But the main thing is to understand what actually represented then Christianity in general and Orthodox Christianity in particular for Europe, Kievan Rus and the peoples around it. It is difficult enough now to say what it was for people in those distant times from their own point of view, but if you operate with the concepts of our time, then this is nothing more than an ideology. And then it was this ideology that became the base, the main idea, on the basis of which it became possible to unite the scattered pagan tribes of the then Eastern Slavs.
The excesses and the opposition to “Christianization” that took place can most likely be attributed to the general reluctance of people to radically change something in their lives, rather than to a conscious denial of the postulates of Christianity in favor of paganism. Also, in no small measure, the priests of the cult, who were and were among the pagans - shamans and the like - probably played a role in the confrontation, but the representatives of the Christian church, apparently, had the best persuasion abilities at that time and, if I may say so , the arguments database. But about these people and their followers still separately and a little further ... There is a rather interesting legend about how and why the Kiev prince Vladimir, nicknamed Krasno Solnyshko, chose Christianity and its Orthodox branch for himself and his people, but let them look themselves, who are interested in the details. Although apparently it was the Orthodox direction of the main then European religion that attracted the attention of the Eastern Slavs and the "village" of the Eastern Slavs is really the best, so now Orthodoxy, which actually came to Russia from Byzantium a thousand years ago, is associated with Russia and the surrounding countries, most of which recently they were still part of the USSR, and not with the place of its actual appearance.
It was hard to argue with the proposed values of Christ's commandments, and to this day hardly anyone can seriously deny their universality and correctness. And apparently that is why these values have taken root and for whole centuries have become an unshakable basis for behavior and morality, for determining what is good and what is evil, what is good and what is bad. Naturally, no one says that everyone and always in their life since that time was unconditionally guided by Christian principles, but the assessment of the actions performed by people took place precisely on their basis. Moreover, again, approximately the same rules and postulates are sometimes only in a slightly different interpretation or presentation, but are repeated in all major world religions, which only emphasizes and proves their inviolability and universality. Also, with the advent of a new ideology, there appeared its, again in modern language, new professional carriers - the ministers of the church. And if faith can be called the general conviction of a person in the existence of a certain higher power, about the concepts of good and evil, or about the inevitability of punishment for a committed evil, for example, then religion (in this case, Christianity) is nothing more than an accessible form of presenting this information, and the church, in turn, is a kind of organization engaged, so to speak, in conveying the postulates of its religion to the broad masses of the population. Moreover, the latter is already being created and controlled wholly and completely by people, with all the ensuing consequences.
The church has its own hierarchy, education system, incomes and the system of their distribution, as well as material property in a variety of forms, that is, in this way this institution inevitably conducts both financial and commercial activities, although this seems to be going on somewhat at first glance. a cut with his original and main message ... But the ministers of the cult are also people and they need to eat and drink something, live somewhere, dress something, religious objects, that is, churches, they need to build, heat, paint and etc., etc., in short, as it is ... Based on its position as the bearer of the basic ideology, in Russia, as in many other countries of that time, the church for a long period, in fact for centuries, in reality was also an influential subject and participant political activity of the state, and high church functionaries thus possessed very significant powers of power and influence.
The well-known slogan of Russian soldiers "For faith, Tsar and Fatherland" (as a variant also "For God, Tsar and Fatherland") appeared of course, although much later than the baptism of Rus, a couple of centuries later, but it was he who, it seems to me, best personified is actually the main direction and the main meaning of Russian ideology, and the existence of the state of Russia itself until 1917. Moreover, it is interesting that in the multinational and multiconfessional Russian Empire, this slogan was essentially suitable for all citizens, since it featured concepts common to all, no specific religion was mentioned, and faith and God are universal concepts. I will not go into details when, how and why, this topic, I think, is already well-known and the views of different people on it are quite different, but, be that as it may, it was from October 1917 (November in a new style) in our the country has changed its ideology again. To replace "Faith, Tsar and Fatherland" came, this time not from the south, but from the west, a new, communist thought - Marxism, proclaiming for the new life values mainly "universal equality" in rights and distribution of material wealth, which then already strongly stratified capitalist society appealed to a fairly broad masses of the population, primarily in industrialized states. On this basis, and in these states, in fact, the communist ideology appeared and was built, and also planned its development. By 1917, in the places of its origin, the Marxist idea had not been applied in practice anywhere in the sense of the formation of state systems, it existed only in theory, but it was decided to conduct the first experiment in Russia. I hope that such a comparison is not a great sin, but like Christianity once, and Marxism came to Russia in a somewhat specific “Russified” reading, later called “Leninism” or “Marxism-Leninism”.
Although it should be noted that from the original canons of Karl Marx, "Leninism" differed, to put it mildly, much more than Orthodox Christianity from other, Western branches of the same religion. In my personal opinion, only the conceptual base, the so-called "class theory", remained in "Leninism", almost everything else was turned upside down and in practice was done almost exactly the opposite ... And again, not everyone agreed with the new ideology ... Some, that is, almost the majority of the country's population, had to be taught to the new postulates and values by force. The ministers of the church naturally also belonged to the active opponents of the new ideological regime, and not only the Christian one, since religion suddenly ceased to be one of the most important links in the existence of the state system and power, and thus the church remained practically without influence and income, to which over the centuries of existence managed to get used to it. In order not to bend the heart, it should be noted that the church itself, or rather its specific servants, who, as already mentioned above, are also people, with their weaknesses, to a large extent, had a hand in the process of the collapse of the existing ideology of "Faith, Tsar and Fatherland" and strengths.
It's not a secret for anyone that church clergy everywhere and at all times lived well on the whole, some even very well, not even at the highest level, with all this, their work in all respects was clearly "not dusty", by at least compared to the overwhelming majority of their parishioners. The image of a priest in Russian fairy tales and legends, by a seemingly strange coincidence of circumstances, is extremely rarely unambiguously positive. Those who, in accordance with the existing ideology, were “God's anointed sovereigns,” that is, the tsar, the royal family and the ruling elites, were also not always a worthy model of behavior and role model for their subjects. By the end of the XNUMXth - beginning of the XNUMXth century, the level of knowledge and education of the population had already reached the point that some rather primitive religious dogmas were questioned, if not by all, then at least by more advanced strata of society, who, in turn, shared their thoughts on this occasion and with the rest. Asserting that something is as it is, simply because God wants it, was the more difficult it became, and the church lacked more reasonable and plausible arguments that would also be understandable to the masses.
All these tendencies did not at all relate exclusively to the state of the Russian and Orthodox Church. I don’t presume to talk, for example, about Islam or Buddhism of that time, but such a destruction of the established Christian system of values most certainly took place practically throughout Europe and in territories under direct European influence (colonies, etc.). Moreover, the developed capitalist countries, which by that time had already switched to a democratic system of government, like France or Great Britain, for example, lost this ideological channel even earlier and even faster, since in addition to profit and an increase in the size of property and capital, some other high goals are already in fact were absent. The European elites had nothing to offer the masses as an ideology and thus a reasonable justification for their own existence and position as these very elites. Religion, the church and "anointed by God" monarchical dynasties were rapidly losing their positions, capital came to take their place in power.
In a sufficiently developed capitalist system and a class stratified society, communist and similar new ideological currents offered people who had lost their ideology and life values something new in exchange and often even in spite of religion. Movements called the "left" advocated universal equality, internationalism, the "right" relied mainly on the national consciousness of people and were aimed at raising the rights of some peoples over others, but both of them promised their followers a more just world order compared to the existing one. Something within the whole world, someone at least one specific state. And for the elites, the main problem of this was that practically all new ideologies denied just the newly formed system in which these very old elites and the newly formed big business were already beginning to closely merge in the area of power sharing. If we are guided by the terminology of Marxism, then a "revolutionary situation" was indeed brewing in Europe. By the beginning of the twentieth century, people on the Old Continent had lost a much-needed ideology, and the established system of values based on this ideology was also rapidly lost for centuries, and this really threatened a social explosion. The ruling elites could not point out to the masses a new direction of development, a new course, did not offer new values to replace the gradually lost Christian ones, and this threatened the masses to get out of the control of these very elites.
The paradox is that the unexpected coming of the Communists to power in Russia resolved this whole situation. It was Ulyanov-Lenin and his comrades, having seized power in our country, gave the West a saving new ideology, which made it possible to keep both the Western elites and capital in their places - this ideology became anti-communism. The fact is that after the seizure of power in October 1917 by the Bolshevik communists, things began in Russia that in more or less prosperous Europe then it was enough to point the finger to the east and ask "Do you want the same?" Nobody obviously wanted the same - terror, civil war, complete collapse of social and economic systems, absolute chaos on the territory of a huge empire disintegrating into parts and the subsequent bloody "dictatorship of the proletariat", all of this was a fairly effective negative example. So effective that anti-communism as the main ideology actually worked in the West right up until the collapse of the Soviet Union. Moreover, the anti-communist ideological base turned out to be so successful and universal that it was brought under a variety of state systems and ideological models - from Italian fascism and German Nazism in the thirties and forties, to the most liberal-democratic and socially oriented state systems, such as existed in Scandinavia in the mid-eighties.
But only in our country in the days of the USSR, apparently, very few, if any, actually understood that the West did not really have any ideology of its own, and all the pseudo-ideological models that existed there were built mainly on the principle of denying our ideology. Obviously, those who in the second half of the eighties started the so-called "perestroika", "democratization" in the Soviet Union and began a course of "rapprochement with the West" apparently did not understand this, apparently believing that there was a more successful model of existence there. ... And this, as it turned out, was a mistake, the consequences of which we have been unraveling for almost 30 years. But I have already gotten ahead of myself.
In the newly formed USSR, after the end of the Civil War, industrialization began, but the regime did not soften from this in any way, perhaps even vice versa. Nevertheless, the ideology was, and was, successful. Faith in God was replaced by faith in a bright future, the tsar first by the communist party, and then directly and personally by its general secretary, the Fatherland remained. That's all. Then the war broke out, and the whole people rallied around their leadership, mainly defending the Fatherland, of course, and at the same time, of course, the ruling Communist Party, and its promised bright future, which someone from the outside apparently came to try to take away. Everyone knows how the war ended - our ideology won, although no one in the west expected this from the start. Then we rebuilt the country and again built our bright future, that is, the same ideology existed quite successfully on this foundation for some time ... until the newly formed communist elites of power in a peaceful and calm time began to attack the same rake, which in the end killed the king and destroyed the clergy at the very beginning of the twentieth century. The story develops in a spiral. And just as once people did not believe fat, lazy, groomed, drunken and adulterous priests, who on Sundays seeming morality to their flock in churches, so already in the seventies and eighties of the last century in the Soviet Union, the people stopped believing the communist leaders, in squares and party meetings proclaiming the denial of "Western material values" and belief in the bright future of world communism, and in real life actively these same values are appropriating and enjoying them. And the highest leaders in the communist hierarchy became also far from the people and inaccessible to them, as the tsar and his entourage once did.
Only those who sincerely believe themselves can ignite and maintain a spark of faith in millions of other people. Crowds of people do not follow preachers who themselves do not believe their sermons. For example, the phenomenon of Adolf Hitler was that he really absolutely believed in his own ideas, and therefore managed to lead one of the most capable and educated peoples of Europe. But when he realized that his idea was already dead, then he himself chose death. Lenin and his associates also initially believed in what they were doing, so the masses followed them. And the Christian preachers in Russia a thousand years ago were probably deeply religious, therefore, often and at the cost of their own lives, they conveyed their faith to the people ... Soviet communists of the eighties in the overwhelming majority stopped believing in their own ideology and used it only for career growth and material benefits, so the system soon collapsed. Everyone turned to the west for salvation, but there, as it turned out, there was no ideology of their own, just as there is none now. All this time she just kept on us. When all of us in the USSR were told that the West was rotting, apparently those who spoke themselves did not even suspect to what extent this was true. All the original Christian values in the "enlightened West" are almost lost or have long gone by complete degradation, and we took anti-communism from them ourselves ... But what now? ... What's next? ... We have somewhere to go and where take ideology, if where we expected to find it, there was simply emptiness and rot, covered only with beautiful color pictures, lies and hypocritical slogans about freedom, democracy and human rights?
The West, having lost anti-communism and the main scarecrow for its peoples in the person of the USSR, is now hastily by inertia and with varying success trying to replace it with Russophobia and a threat from the same place, but with a different name. That is, again, there is nothing new, just an attempt at light cosmetic repairs to a very old object - maybe it will still serve ... So far, it seems to be going on somehow, but it resembles the situation with communist ideas in the Soviet Union in the eighties, and even this is very rude , hastily and with white threads. In some places in the vastness of the former Soviet Union it still “rolls”, but initially it does not suit us ... if only because in Russia Russophobia cannot be an ideology by definition. And judging by the success and degree of professionalism of the modern Western leaders and ideologists themselves, such a trend will not last long there either. They now have something like, as they say, treatment of a cancerous tumor with an iodine mesh. On the basis of national character and habits, we do not pull on the way of life and building a society in an oriental style, as in China or Singapore, for example. Some are trying to build some kind of new ideological line based on the victory and exploits of our people during the Great Patriotic War - as a historical example to follow in a particular case, this is good, perhaps it is also suitable for educating young people in the correct patriotic spirit, but the ideology of the whole state is based on past, albeit with the honor of winning the war, it is impossible to build.
There is another extremely interesting, from my point of view, moment - in the West all this time, no one prohibited or oppressed religion, on the contrary, the states of the Western world even subsidized and supported the church in every possible way, but at the same time all Christian postulates essentially degraded, the church lost authority, believers the further the less. This is if we count Christians in the most diverse versions of this religion, although their place in Europe, for example, is successfully taken by newly arrived and rapidly multiplying Muslim immigrants, thus the number of operating mosques in the Old World will probably soon exceed the number of Christian cathedrals, churches, churches, etc. On the other hand, over the years of the existence of the USSR, again paradoxically, and unlike this very West, with the actual seventy-year ban on religious activity at the state level, our people somehow preserved the original Christian and generally universal values. Things like the concept of a traditional family, a sense of truth and justice, as well as Orthodox traditions, exist in Russia literally on a subconscious level. Can we try to build an ideology on this again? Probably you can. The only question is, again, in the human factor - who will be its bearer? Church again? And where, in this case, is the guarantee that we will not return to the results of a century ago? Previously, there were field priests in the Russian tsarist army, in the other armies they remained almost everywhere, in the Soviet armed forces they were replaced by political instructors - communist commissars.
After the collapse of the USSR, they were apparently abolished as if they were no longer needed. Now in our army they are going to reintroduce the post of political worker, but the question is - what kind of ideology will it be for the soldiers? How to explain to a young man what is generally in our country for the social system and what kind of state system? It seems to be capitalism, but in this case there is somehow too much social orientation and obviously not profitable state programs. We left the communist idea, but socialism with such a concentration of capital in the hands of a limited circle of oligarchy and such a wild difference in incomes of different segments of the population somehow does not seem to be, and this situation, as it seems, will not change in any foreseeable future.
Recently, we often see how the entire world economic system is literally shaking because of seemingly local crises in separate places, and this, in turn, often affects the political situation. And it happens the other way around. And this is all because the world economy has become too intertwined - globalized. And globalism itself is in no way an ideology, but simply a way of financial enrichment of an extremely narrow group of people, a kind of macro-capitalist international. So maybe in order to protect yourself and your country you just need to introduce the ideology of "anti-globalism"? Moreover, this does not in any way mean some kind of voluntary self-isolation, on the contrary, it is quite reasonable to interact with all countries on a bilateral and mutually beneficial basis, simply without creating and participating in supranational financial institutions, and not being guided by some rules established by them.
There is a sense in this. Yes, and with US President Donald Trump we will then clearly be on the way - after all, he also wants to get away from globalism, once generated by the United States itself, back to a flourishing model of the national economy. But here we will definitely stumble upon the confrontation of our own ruling elites - the oligarchy, whose capital is mostly earned and stored abroad, often just in these very supranational funds. This oil, gas, timber, metals and other things are mined and produced here, and the money for them is paid mainly by foreign ones. In addition, modern global capitalism is not industrial, it is financial - money makes the most money, not industry, as it was at the time of the birth of the ideas of Marxism. And this is the main problem: money from the means of intermediary assistance in economic activity - trade turnover, has become both the goal and, at the same time, an instrument of self-enhancement. Having untied the then only truly international currency - the dollar - from the gold equivalent in the early eighties, the United States laid a time bomb under the entire world economy.
This was done for the sake of the opportunity to actually increase their own solvency simply by using a printing press for dollars. Then such a move apparently seemed to some people as a genius idea, literally magic and the key to boundless prosperity. But in the end it also depreciated the dollar itself, making its value virtual, based only on stock speculations, and so, in turn, the monetary units of other states exchanged for American currency were actually devalued. On these inflated dollars and on this virtual wealth, a whole group of individuals and legal entities emerged, taking possession of quite tangible world wealth, property and, accordingly, power. This is what is now called the world government, in fact, the capitalist international, most of which and the main governing bodies are now physically located in the United States. But he is only there, with the state system of America it has nothing to do either officially or legally, except that it can strongly influence and influence its decisions, as well as the policy of the governments in general of most countries on planet Earth, unfortunately, our not excluding. In fact, against this unexpectedly for everyone lately, none other than the new president of the United States himself started a war. It is really hard for an outsider to understand what really drives him. A certain personal self-interest in a person like Donald Trump, I think, can be ruled out.
Quite possibly it is simply a belief in the idea of the pure and “honest” industrial capitalism in which it grew up. Maybe he really believes infinitely in the correctness of his own idea, like Hitler, Lenin or the preachers of Christianity a thousand years ago (I apologize in advance for such a comparison). In any case, today he is the one who is going to destroy once again no less, but a whole world system. Personally, I think he just understands that if this system is not broken now, then sooner or later it will collapse on its own, and it will be a much greater disaster. Moreover, the main blow of this tragedy in this case will be borne by his country - the United States. And this is exactly what he wants to avoid. At the same time, the bloated world financial octopus does not care whether the United States will exist or not in the form it does now, and this "shadow government" absolutely does not care about Russia and the Russians, about China and the Chinese, or, for example, Botswana with its population equally. For their virtual money, they have already acquired quite themselves material wealth in the form of property around the world - this wealth, unlike paper money, stocks, futures, debt obligations and the devil knows what else from the same series, is already real, it is really tangible and will not go anywhere, and it is on this that their calculation of survival in the inevitably approaching world financial apocalypse is apparently built.
But returning to the original question - what do we do with all this? ... Where to go? Today we again have Vladimir at the head of a partially disintegrated state, and again there is a question of choosing an ideology. Yes, such that, if possible, and all the peoples around us again to unite. There are three options: first, you can revive the existing Christian principles and build a new society on them; secondly, you can try to create something of your own and radically new; thirdly, we can take and accept something reasonable and suitable for us, from what someone has already invented somewhere.
If we consider option No. 1 and take exclusively Orthodox values as the basis of our development, then the question immediately arises "on whom should this burden of retaining ideology be entrusted?" On a church that has already failed all this? With all its problems and contradictions that have not disappeared anywhere? Option number 2 assumes the presence of some serious own idea, from which it is possible as a result to build the ideology of an entire state and even prove its attractiveness for neighbors, but over the past almost three decades nothing like this has somehow been found in the Russian expanses, and in the foreseeable future, as it seems to me, there will not be. A wise Russian prince chose the third option a thousand years ago. It was slightly adjusted, so to speak, to local conditions, and was successfully used for the next almost a thousand years. And the fact that someone else's idea is okay. Why reinvent the wheel again if, with all the raw materials available, you can simply make it for yourself and on your territory? In this case, I consider anti-globalism to be idea number 3, an ideology already proposed for use by Donald Trump in his native United States. Moreover, it is not at all a fact that he will succeed there with this, like Marx in Western Europe. And we, again on historical parallels, may well succeed. True, not everyone will like it at first ... but nothing ... Prince Vladimir also had to fight with someone for his faith, and take away earthly goods from someone ...
But in the end it was worth it - Russia has become huge, powerful and united. Maybe it will happen again exactly in a thousand years from here? ... As a matter of faith, in this case we can leave the bright future that is already familiar to everyone, instead of tsar and the Communist Party to honor the primordial universal human values, they are also Christian values, and the Fatherland - it has not disappeared, it is one for all and for all. Why is this ideology so bad?