State socialism and monarchy. Monarchy, socialist republic or democracy, which is better? (3 photos) Monarchy with a socialist form 2

Some will disagree with this statement; this is shocking to others, but pay attention to interesting fact- Today, Leontiev's works are popular not only among Orthodox monarchists, but also among Stalinists.

When in the 1990s active reprinting of the works of Konstantin Nikolayevich began, this led to a new consideration of the topic “conservatism-socialism”. Philologist S.G. Bocharov, referring to the idea of an alliance of socialism with the Russian autocracy, proposed by Leontiev, wrote: "History has not carried out such a bizarre combination and, hopefully, will not do it any more ...". Philosopher G.D. Gachev believed that for Leontiev "... the Eastern despot Stalin (with his peculiar ... aesthetics ...) could be quite aesthetically acceptable." The publicist N. Leontiev categorically stated: “I don’t know if the leader’s extensive library contained the works of Konstantin Leontiev, whether he knew them or himself reached the truth ... but, without a doubt, I.V. Stalin brought to life much of what this ... Russian thinker wrote about long before the start of our revolution, ”and M.P. Lobanov noticed in the "Stalinist mystery" a certain "temptation ... in the spirit of K. Leontiev."

And, nevertheless, some modern researchers who have turned to Leontiev’s forecasts about a possible alliance of “socialism with Russian autocracy” cannot help but be surprised at the foresight of the thinker who died in 1891, when, it would seem, nothing threatened the prosperous existence of autocratic Russia. By that time, Leontiev's writings had already been presented Alexander III, but he did not at all delude himself about the future: “now, when ... you live in this reaction and see, nevertheless, how shallow and indecisive it is, you will inevitably doubt and say to yourself:“ just that?

Konstantin Leontiev predicted that "the enslavement of starving labor to multi-power capital" would inevitably lead Europe (and possibly Russia) to socialist revolution, and since any society requires some kind of heterogeneity, then “communism, in its violent aspirations for the ideal of immovable equality, should gradually lead, on the one hand, to lesser mobility of capital and property, on the other hand, to a new legal inequality, to new privileges, to restrictions on personal freedom and coercive corporate groups sharply defined by laws; probably even to new forms of personal slavery or enslavement (at least indirectly, differently named).

Of great interest to Leontiev was the reasoning of Lev Tikhomirov, a former populist who became a monarchist. In the work “Social Mirages of Modernity”, he argued that in the case of the practical implementation of the socialist doctrine, the new society would be built not on the principles of freedom and equality, as the socialists promise, but on the most severe suppression of the individual in the name of the state.

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 institutions”, 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 suddenly refuse to fulfill state 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.

Incidentally, the day before 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.) In this way, the government’s idea dating back to the beginning of 1914 to introduce five-year planning cycles for the construction of railways, ports, 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 the 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. Different countries have 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 Russia.

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 Russia. 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 Russia 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 connection are noticeable, especially beneficial in the difficult geopolitical and climatic conditions of Russia, which require 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 lower-ranking officials. 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.

In 1919, the book of the philosopher O. Spengler "Prussianism and Socialism" was published, in which the author criticized the ideas of class society of Karl Marx and his theory of economic development, offering his vision of Germany's way out of the crisis of the Versailles Treaty. O. Spengler, relying on the desire of the Prussians for collective work, for a heightened sense of justice, deduced new type socialist relations in a state where driving force is not a party parliament and not the liberalism of Anglo-Saxon capitalism, but a people united for one purpose. 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 possible 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 impending birth of a new religion, the third of rich opportunities in Christianity.

In this foreknowledge of the events that took place in Russia, O. Spengler predicted the state system that replaced capitalism and flourished most during the years of 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 the only driving force behind it 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 created social conditions for collectivism, comradeship in all branches of the 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, the further development of 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 should become fundamental principles. 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. Parliament became the spokesman for the will of oligarchic, monopoly capitalism, and not of 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 taken 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 a “first servant of his people”, who was elected by direct vote from among his equals and likes, deserved this title by the desire of the exclusively national and state good, but not his personal success. Such authoritarianism of the people's power is based only on the desire for national development, 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 under 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 wanting to keep one's power even further, and the lack of rotation of personnel can lead to the creation in the future political party top leadership of the country. 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 highly specialized issues government controlled, imposing certain responsibilities on 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!

While laying the foundations of state socialism, one cannot but respond to the 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 domestic, social needs, providing numerous services and housing free of charge, taking care of the recreation 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 makes it possible to constantly create 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, worker 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 they close down production that does not make a profit. 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 real estate, created as a result of personal achievements in business, the possibility of expanding one's investments and, as a result, enjoying the results of one's work without limiting oneself to the framework of public morality. On the contrary, it is socialism that makes a person's labor truly free, since he does not have to strive to sell his labor at a higher price, entering into irreparable contradictions with the employer, who strives to buy this labor as cheaply as possible, thereby increasing his profit. 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 are forcing the worker to look for a new application of his own strength, when it is not satisfaction from the results of his own work that 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

How Konstantin Leontiev prophesied the appearance of Joseph Stalin back in the 19th century

Some will disagree with this statement; this is shocking to others, but let's pay attention to an interesting fact - today Leontiev's works are popular not only among Orthodox monarchists, but also among Stalinists.

When in the 1990s active reprinting of the works of Konstantin Nikolayevich began, this led to a new consideration of the topic "conservatism-socialism". Philologist S.G. Bocharov, referring to the idea of an alliance of socialism with the Russian autocracy, proposed by Leontiev, wrote: "History has not carried out such a bizarre combination and, hopefully, will not do it any more ...". Philosopher G.D. Gachev believed that for Leontiev "... the Eastern despot Stalin (with his peculiar ... aesthetics ...) could be quite aesthetically acceptable." The publicist N. Leontiev categorically stated: “I don’t know if the leader’s extensive library contained the works of Konstantin Leontiev, whether he knew them or himself reached the truth ... but, without a doubt, I.V. Stalin brought to life much of what this ... Russian thinker wrote about long before the start of our revolution, ”and M.P. Lobanov noticed in the "Stalinist mystery" a certain "temptation ... in the spirit of K. Leontiev."

And, nevertheless, some modern researchers who have turned to Leontiev’s forecasts about a possible alliance of “socialism with Russian autocracy” cannot help but be surprised at the foresight of the thinker who died in 1891, when, it would seem, nothing threatened the prosperous existence of autocratic Russia. By that time, Leontiev’s writings had already been presented to Alexander III, but he did not at all delude himself about the future: “now, when ... you live in this reaction and see, nevertheless, how shallow and indecisive it is, you will inevitably doubt and say to yourself:“ only - then?".

Konstantin Leontiev predicted that “the enslavement of starving labor to multi-power capital” would inevitably lead Europe (and possibly Russia) to a socialist revolution, and since some kind of heterogeneity is necessary for any society, then “communism, in its violent aspirations for the ideal of immovable equality, must various combinations with other principles lead gradually, on the one hand, to lesser mobility of capital and property, on the other hand, to a new legal inequality, to new privileges, to restrictions on personal freedom and coercive corporate groups, sharply outlined by laws; probably even to new forms of personal slavery or enslavement (at least indirectly, differently named).

Tikhomirov predicted that in a socialist society an important place would be occupied by punitive bodies that would monitor the implementation of the prescribed rules and severely punish violators.

He also envisaged the development of a bureaucratic apparatus in which leaders and propagandists would take a prominent place: “The power of the new state over the individual will, of necessity, be enormous. A new system is being established (if that happens) by means of an iron class dictatorship.” Tikhomirov's reflections on the establishment of a new hierarchy and iron discipline under socialism corresponded to the forecasts of Leontiev himself. The latter, to the great surprise of the author of the article, noted that if everything really is as described in the article, then communism will be useful, since it will restore the lost justice in society.

“In Leontiev,” Tikhomirov noted, “a serious philosophical social thought began to stir on this topic, connected with those general laws of development and decline of human societies ... He seriously thought about this, looking for a place for communism in general scheme development, and it began to seem to him that the role of communism would turn out to be historically not negative, but positive. In this regard, it seems interesting to us the opinion of V.V. Rozanov, who believed that Leontiev locked himself in “the shell of his cruel conservatism” only “out of desperation”, “hiding, like a great esthete, from the flow of petty-bourgeois ideas and petty-bourgeois factors of time and the impending future. And, consequently, if something far away were shown to his (Leontiev's) knightly heart, something that was not conservative, even radical - and at the same time, however, not petty-bourgeois, not flat, not vulgar - then he would rush to him with with all the power of his - let me say - genius.

Thanking Tikhomirov for Social Mirages of Modernity, Leontiev noted: “I have a certain special view of communism and socialism, which can be formulated in two ways: firstly, liberalism is a revolution (mixture, assimilation); socialism is a despotic organization (of the future); and in another way: the realization of socialism in life will be an expression of the need to suspend the excessive mobility of life (since 89 of the 18th century). Compare some passages in my books with those passages in your last article, where you speak of the inevitability of inequality in the new organization of labor, and you will understand the main point of our contact. I have been thinking about this for a long time and have begun to write more than once, but, fearing my ignorance in this area, each time I left the work unfinished. I have a hypothesis, or at least a rather bold suspicion; you have incomparably more familiarity with the details of cases. And so the idea comes to me to offer you some kind of cooperation, even to sign both of them and share the payment ... If this work turned out, from the point of view of "opportunism", inconvenient for publication, then I would be satisfied with our thoughts being clear set out in the manuscript. Thus, Tikhomirov received from Leontiev an offer to write a joint work on socialism, but these intentions were not destined to come true.

Warning of the inevitable transformation of socialism on Russian soil, Leontiev wrote: “What is now an extreme revolution will then become a guard, an instrument of strict coercion, discipline, and partly even slavery ... Socialism is the feudalism of the future ... in essence, liberalism is , undoubtedly, destruction, and socialism can also become creation. He admitted that at first it was precisely destructive slogans that would be most widely used - “first anarchy, organization - later; it will come of itself,” but he had no doubt that the Russian socialists would become consistent statesmen.

At the head of the future socialist state, Leontiev saw a leader who would be able to restore the lost discipline.

He believed that "socialist feudalism" would be created with the subordination of individual individuals to small and large organizations ("communities"), and the "communities" themselves to the state. Even the possibility of "enslavement" of individuals in the form of their "attachment" to various institutions or other persons standing high in the ranks was assumed.

As an antipode to this despotic society, Leontiev saw a kind of "all-America", a generalized cosmopolitan symbol. “When I think about the Russia of the future, I set as an indispensable condition the appearance of just such thinkers and leaders who will be able to apply to the cause that kind of hatred for this All-America, with which I am now almost alone and in the depths of my heart impotently blaze! 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. And this socialism will be a new and severe threefold slavery: to the communities, the Church and the Tsar. And all of America is ... to hell!

Leontiev rejected the possibility of a disinterested union between Russia and the West. In one of the letters to the priest I.I. Fudel, he even suggested that, perhaps, in 50 years, the West, having united in “one liberal and nihilistic republic” and putting a brilliant leader at the head of this republic, will begin a campaign against Russia. And then this united republic will be "terrible in its impulse." She will be able to dictate the terms of Russia, threatening her independence: "Abandon your dynasty, or we will leave no stone unturned and devastate the whole country." And then either “we will merge with the charming utilitarian republic of the West”, or “if we are ourselves, then in response we will overturn with glory on them all of Asia, even Muslim and pagan, and we will only have to save monuments of art there.”

The thinker predicted that a variant was possible when Russia would be able to “take an extreme revolutionary movement in its hands and, having become its head, wipe the bourgeois culture of Europe from the face of the earth.” Not without reason - this great state machine, which is called Russia, was built and not completed yet. .. You can’t think that it will live until its very (until inevitable in time, after all) death and death only as a political one, i.e. as a mechanical force, without any ideal influence on history.

For all the vulnerability of historical parallels, it can be noted that Leontiev was able to predict the fate of Russia in the twentieth century more clearly than Danilevsky.

After the end of World War II, the USSR vaguely resembled Leontief's modeled society. JV Stalin was forced to give the recently persecuted Orthodox Church a certain place in the state system. The people were subordinated to the communities (in the form of collective farms) and the ruling party, built on a hierarchical principle based on strict discipline. All this existed against the background of the growing confrontation between the Soviet country and capitalist America. At the same time, the people, who won the hardest war against the enemy, who threatened to "leave no stone unturned and devastate the whole country," felt legitimate pride in their homeland. In 1952, the poet Alexei Eisner in the poem "Cavalry" writes almost in Leontief ruthlessly:

Peaks easily plunge into the sky,

Stirrups rattle a little

And someone will move with a wild gesture

Yours, Russia, tribes...

Again, again the checkers take off,

The trumpet roars through the rows,

And the red caps jump

Through the devastated cities.

The wagon is knocking.

In the transparent Louvre light and scream

And before the Venus de Milo

The mysterious Kalmyk froze

Wake up, blessed Europe,

Shake peace from beautiful eyelids, -

More terrible than a coward and a flood

Far Asia foray.

She will be raised by passion and will,

dawn cold bugler,

Smoke from a fire in a dewy field

And the whistle of a raised saber ...

Pray, fat prelates,

Madonna is pink.

Pray! - Russian soldiers

The horses are already being saddled.

Considering that the popularity of socialism is promoted by its messianic touch and universal connotation, Leontiev argued that in Russia socialism would acquire religious and sacrificial features. He was not alone in this assertion. A certain pseudo-religious touch was seen in socialism by Danilevsky and Tikhomirov.

Danilevsky emphasized that if in the West materialistic and atheistic teachings were scientific character, then in Russia, due to the peculiarities of the cultural and historical type, they acquired a messianic coloring, giving rise to their martyrs for the idea, their "apostles" and "preachers".

Leontiev wrote to one of his correspondents that in the 20th and 21st centuries socialism would play the role that Christianity once played. In the same letter, the idea was expressed that “socialism does not yet mean atheism”, and for the socialist doctrine there can be its own Konstantin, its own preacher, who, through “both blood and peaceful reforms”, will create a new society. Otherwise, humanity will merge into a single rationalistic civilization.

Leontiev had no doubt that “socialism (that is, a deep and partly violent economic ... revolution) is now apparently inevitable ... The life of these new people should be much harder, more painful than the life of good, conscientious monks in strict monasteries (for example, on Athos), And this life is very difficult for someone familiar with it ... But the Athos kinoviat has one firm and clear consoling thought, there is a saving thread ... bliss beyond the grave. Whether this thought will be comforting to the people of the proposed economic hostels, we do not know.” He predicted that the establishment of a new socialist government in Russia would be associated with great sacrifices. He did not believe in the possibility of establishing long-term democratic rule in Russia, believing that even if the liberals triumphed in Russia, the destructive energy of the masses would sweep them away. And then extreme radicals must inevitably come to power: “What do you think, Messrs. liberals, will they erect a monument to you? Not! Socialists everywhere (and especially our Marks Volokhovs and Bazarovs) despise your moderate liberalism... And no matter how hostile these people may be against real guardians or against the forms and methods of guarding, which is unfavorable to them, they themselves will need all the essential aspects of guarding teachings. They will need fear, they will need discipline; they will need traditions of obedience, a habit of obedience... Yes, of course, if anarchist socialists triumph anywhere and sometime, they will do justice to conservatives rather than those representatives of cautious... denial who are called liberals and who real name should be: legal revolutionaries ... ".

Comparison of liberalism and socialism, as the ways of development of Russia, did not end in favor of the first: "Moderate liberalism for the mind is, first of all, turmoil, much more turmoil than anarchism or communism." In his work “The Average European as an Ideal and a Tool of World Destruction”, Leontiev compared the actions of radical socialists with a fire, noting that a fire can bring not only harm, but also benefit. Built on the site of a burned-out one, a new building can be more perfect, a new one can arise on the ruins of the old one. At the same time, Leontiev stipulated that “arsonists” should be severely punished, not glorified, and called for more severe punishment of “careless arsonists” (liberals), who bring more harm to the state than “deliberate arsonists” (revolutionaries). Watching the European events, Leontiev was looking for a way different from those offered by the liberals and anarchists: “For us, both sides are equally alien and even disgusting - both the ferocious Communard, burning Tuileries treasures, and the unbelieving guardian of capital, the Republican shopkeeper, equally hostile to his Church. , and the monarch, and the people. Therefore, for all the dislike of liberalism, Leontiev is definitely not suspected of sympathy for anti-statists (today's "Orangemen"), although in Maxim Gorky's most famous work "The Life of Klim Samgin" the protagonist, thinking about publishing his own printed organ, dreams of "writing about the spiritual relationship of Konstantin Leontiev with Mikhail Bakunin.

Leontiev attached great importance to the presence of despotic elements in socialism, without which Russia would turn into a kind of world bourgeois republic.

“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 the family, or higher civilization, no one but the Monarchist Government can. The thinker fully admitted that socialism could be combined with the monarchical principle. Leontiev shocked orthodox conservatives with such thoughts: “I will say even more: if socialism is not as a nihilistic rebellion and delusions of self-denial, but as a legitimate organization of labor and capital, as a new corporate forced enslavement of human societies, then in Russia to create ... this new order, harming neither the church, nor the family, nor the highest civilization - no one can except the monarchical government.

Shortly before his death, in a letter to Rozanov, the thinker predicted: “The union of socialism (“the coming slavery,” according to the liberal Spencer) with Russian autocracy and fiery mysticism (which philosophy will serve like a dog) is still possible, but it will be terrible for many … Otherwise, everything will be either jelly or anarchy.” 100 years after these lines were written, the USSR collapsed. 1991 was the 100th anniversary of Leontiev's death, but only a few in that situation paid attention to the forecasts of the thinker, who was able to catch both the "tremors" of the revolutionary storm and the tread of Joseph Stalin.

Special for the Centenary

And, nevertheless, some modern researchers who have turned to Leontiev’s forecasts about a possible alliance of “socialism with Russian autocracy” cannot help but be surprised at the foresight of the thinker who died in 1891, when, it would seem, nothing threatened the prosperous existence of autocratic Russia. By that time, Leontiev’s writings had already been presented to Alexander III, but he did not at all delude himself about the future: “now, when ... you live in this reaction and see, nevertheless, how shallow and indecisive it is, you will inevitably doubt and say to yourself:“ only - then?".

Tikhomirov predicted that in a socialist society an important place would be occupied by punitive bodies that would monitor the implementation of the prescribed rules and severely punish violators.

“In Leontiev,” noted Tikhomirov, “serious philosophical social thought began to stir on this topic, connected with those general laws of development and decline of human societies ... He seriously thought about this, looking for the place of communism in the general scheme of development, and it began to seem to him that the role of communism turns out to be historically not negative, but positive. In this regard, it seems interesting to us the opinion of V.V. Rozanov, who believed that Leontiev locked himself in “the shell of his cruel conservatism” only “out of desperation”, “hiding, like a great esthete, from the flow of petty-bourgeois ideas and petty-bourgeois factors of time and the impending future. And, consequently, if something far away were shown to his (Leontiev's) knightly heart, something that was not conservative, even radical - and at the same time, however, not petty-bourgeois, not flat, not vulgar - then he would rush to him with with all the power of his - let me say - genius.

At the head of the future socialist state, Leontiev saw a leader who would be able to restore the lost discipline.

For all the vulnerability of historical parallels, it can be noted that Leontiev was able to predict the fate of Russia in the twentieth century more clearly than Danilevsky.

Peaks easily plunge into the sky,
Stirrups rattle a little
And someone will move with a wild gesture
Yours, Russia, tribes...
Again, again the checkers take off,
The trumpet roars through the rows,
And the red caps jump
Through the devastated cities.
The wagon is knocking.
In the transparent Louvre light and scream
And before the Venus de Milo
The mysterious Kalmyk froze
Wake up, blessed Europe,
Shake peace from beautiful eyelids, -
More terrible than a coward and a flood
Far Asia foray.
She will be raised by passion and will,
dawn cold bugler,
Smoke from a fire in a dewy field
And the whistle of a raised saber ...
Pray, fat prelates,
Madonna is pink.
Pray! - Russian soldiers
The horses are already being saddled.

Danilevsky emphasized that if in the West materialistic and atheistic teachings were of a scientific nature, then in Russia, due to the peculiarities of the cultural and historical type, they acquired a messianic coloring, giving rise to their own martyrs for the idea, their own “apostles” and “preachers”.

Leontiev attached great importance to the presence of despotic elements in socialism, without which Russia would turn into a kind of world bourgeois republic.