Say a word about the Russian peasant

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

Now it is no secret to anyone that the information struggle against Russia has been going on for several centuries, where the Russian peasant who makes up the bulk of the country's population is seen as wild, ignorant with invariable slavish obedience. Ancient Russia was preserved in mythical paganism and the evolutionary process of human development did not seem to have touched Russia, and the people - as trusting and unable to think thousands of years ago, remained the same.

From the very beginning of the formation of the Russian state, the enthronement of the monarchy began on blood, serfdom - Russian slavery - was introduced on blood. The hands of the oprichnina (Russian Inquisition) suppressed and killed millions of free people inhabiting the territory of Russia.

Ivan the Terrible opened the way for the expansion of the Russian people and the exploitation of natural resources, the first manufactories were opened by the British under him. Peter I and subsequent rulers opened the way for foreign rule over the Russian people. And their opinion served as the basis for Russian historiography. The picture in the title from the book by Adam Olearius "Traveling in Russia, Tartary (Crimea) and Persia" clearly demonstrates the influence of Western ideology on the slavish obedience of the Russian people.

P. A. Vyazemsky in the first half of the 19th century wrote:

You rarely come across such frank thoughts about the mores of the ruling elite about the main value of the state - the people. And who could describe the Russian community?

In the second book of "Polar Star" (1856), a very interesting article by NP Ogarev was published, entitled "Russian Questions". In it, the author asks, among other things, whom the government could take as its assistants in undertaking the work of freeing the serfs, and answers as follows:

“But in the midst of nature, Skinny and mournful, covered in dust

Man is “the crown of creation, Pearl of nature, king of the earth ….

(Alexander Lvovich Borovikovsky)

But a formidable censorship stood in his way, which allowed only that which would characterize the wretchedness and poverty of the peasant, blaming him for his lack of education and lack of culture, hiding the communality of the Russian peasantry, where the magnificent traits of the character of the Russian people are manifested.

People, like a person, are judged by their appearance. Therefore, the despotism that dominates the children of the Russian people is considered, of course, as an expression and consequence of the national character. The public opinion of the liberal wing of Russia, and indeed of all literate Europe, sees only additional proof of the invariable slavish obedience of the masses, who are equally incapable of understanding the freedom-loving aspirations of European peoples.

But the Facts cannot be denied. The movements of Razin and Pugachev are described only from the police point of view: - the encroachment on the throne of His Majesty and the "wild licentiousness of the crowd."

In the second quarter of the XIX century. The peasant movements reached their highest rise in 1826 and 1848. - 1059 peasant unrest. But in the middle of the century for the period 1857 - May 1861. 2165 peasant disturbances were taken into account. (!) To suppress popular unrest, troops were used, but in a number of cases, they tried to limit their use, fearing collusion between peasants and recruits. In 1857, the ratio that was still characteristic of previous years (41 commissioning at 100 disturbances) was almost preserved. In 1858, there was already a certain decrease (99 commissions with 378 disturbances).

But then the first months of 1861.have already given such a number of "acute cases" that the armed forces, which by that time had been brought to full combat readiness, were used 718 times during 1340 disturbances. As a rule, unrest associated with the land issue involved large masses of peasants and were particularly persistent. All of them were suppressed not only with extraordinary cruelty, but also with methodological consistency.

But at the same time, the strengthening of "agrarian movements" caused extreme alarm among the local nobility, because at every step they had to run into the inexorable will of the peasants to secure the transfer of land to them and open threats to deal with the landowners if this demand was not met. And you can cite a lot of facts similar to that reported by the noblewoman Fedotova, who wrote to the chief of the gendarmes that a group of peasants in the Elatomsky district, Tambov province, openly announced their intention to “dam the Oka River with landowners” if the peasants did not receive land upon liberation.

Characteristic features of the peasant unrest of the period of serfdom were also a significantly greater mass movement, the deployment of a number of uprisings based on general demands outside the territory of the estate and the united action of peasants not only of different owners, but also of different categories. In addition to the agrarian movements, there was also the "Sober Movement" was directly directed against the system of ransoms, but its significance goes far beyond the fight against the abuse of tax farmers and violations of the rules of the wine trade. It was in the amazing unanimity that is characteristic of "sober movements" that both the landlords and the government saw an immediate threat to themselves.

In the summary of information "about peasant societies that have agreed not to drink grain wine", compiled in Section III, there is a very curious entry in this regard. "In many places in the Tula province," the 3rd department records, "the peasants have consistently refused to drink wine, and the persistence with which this is performed shows the strong spirit of the Russian peasant and arouses in some fears that with the onset of spring the peasants will agree not to do corvee in the same way." …

In a number of cases, the movement began with the fact that a numerous gathering took a written, and more often an oral decision and established penalties for violation of such. Here is what the headquarters officer of the Corps of Gendarmes in the Tula province reports about one of such collusion: “Krapivensky district, in the estate of prince. Abamelik's peasants agreed verbally not to buy grain wine, so that whoever of them would be noticed in non-fulfillment of this condition, he would pay 5 rubles. ser. fine and punished with 25 blows of the rods. To further reinforce this condition, the peasants, after the liturgy in the church with. Goloshchapov, having warned priest Rudnev about his agreement, was asked to serve a prayer service."

In some cases, it was precisely stipulated under what circumstances and in what quantity it was allowed to purchase wine. So, for example, the mundane gathering of the Trinity rural society, Krasnoslobodsky district, Penza province, allowed the purchase of wine “during weddings no more than a bucket, at christenings - one half-shtof or for illnesses of an elderly person who wants to drink vodka, then he can send and take to the house no more than one mowing head."

The punishment of those guilty of failure to comply with the adopted decision usually took place "at a general meeting." “A crowd gathers, they put a pole on the square with a red kerchief tied to it, and near this pole the offender is punished. In one of the state-owned villages of Bogoroditsky u. something like a procession is arranged, and, in order for everyone to know, they pound a stick into something metal."

In some places, city dwellers joined the peasants. This was the case in the town of Balashov, where the society of the bourgeoisie also made a vow not to consume intoxicated drinks. It is in this context that one more historical injustice is seen - describing a Russian woman as dark, downtrodden. It is unlikely that they stood aside from a sober lifestyle. (!)

The peasantry of a despotic state - and there is a strange contradiction in this - enjoys, apart from abuse of power, almost as extensive self-government as the rural communities in Switzerland or Norway. A village gathering, where all men who have already left the father's authority gather, decide all matters, and these decisions are not subject to appeal. Since the liberation of the peasants in 1861, the government has made some changes in the order of rural self-government. For example, a special rural court has been created, consisting of ten judges elected at a meeting, while previously, according to the law, only the world, or the people's assembly, ruled the court.

The government also tried to seize control of the world and curtail its rights, strengthening the power of the headman and recognizing only the assemblies called by him as competent; the election of the headman must be approved by a conciliator appointed by the government and the local nobility. However, in its original form, that is, in those places where the authorities were not strong enough to restrict the rights of the world, communal autonomy did not suffer any infringement.

Peace in Central Russia (in South Russia - a community) represents the peasant concept of supreme power. Peace protects the well-being of the entire community and has the right to demand unconditional obedience from each of its members. Peace can be called by the poorest member of the community anytime, anywhere within the village. Community authorities must respect the convening of a meeting, and if they are negligent in the performance of their duties, the world can remove them from office without warning, or even permanently deprive them of all powers.

Rural community gatherings, like the Landesgemeinde meetings in the medieval Swiss cantons, are held in the open air in front of the headman's house, a village tavern or other suitable location.

What strikes most of all those who are present at such a gathering for the first time is the seemingly complete disorder that reigns there. There is no chairman; the discussion is the scene of a perfect mess. After the community member who called the meeting has explained the reasons that prompted him to this, everyone rushes to express their opinion, and for some time the verbal competition is like a general dump in a fist fight.

The word belongs to those who managed to attract listeners to themselves. If he pleases them, the screamers will be quickly silenced. If he does not say anything sensible, no one pays attention to him and the first opponent interrupts him. But when a burning issue is discussed and the atmosphere at the gathering heats up, everyone speaks at once and no one listens to anyone. Then the laity are divided into groups, and in each of them the issue is discussed separately. Everybody shouts out their arguments at the top of their lungs; screams and abuse, insults and ridicule pour in from all sides, and an unimaginable din rises, which, it would seem, will not work.

However, the apparent chaos is irrelevant. It is a necessary means to achieve a certain goal. In our village meetings, voting is unknown; disagreements are never resolved by majority vote. Any question must be settled unanimously. Therefore, the general conversation, like group disputes, continues until a proposal is made that reconciles all parties and receives the approval of the whole WORLD. Undoubtedly, also, that complete unanimity can be achieved only after careful analysis and comprehensive discussion of the subject of the dispute. And in order to eliminate objections, it is essential to confront those who defend opposing opinions and induce them to resolve their disagreements in single combat.

The world does not impose solutions on the minority that they cannot agree with. Everyone should make concessions for the common good, for the peace and well-being of the community. Most are too noble to take advantage of their numerical superiority. The world is not a master, but a loving father, equally beneficent to all his sons. It is this property of rural self-government in Russia that explains the high sense of humanity, which is such a remarkable feature of our village customs - mutual assistance in field work, assistance to the poor, sick, orphans - and the admiration of all who have observed rural life in our country. The boundless devotion of the Russian peasants to their world must also be attributed to this.

“What the world ordered, then God judged” - says a popular proverb. There are many other similar proverbs, such as: - "God alone will judge the world", "Who will be more than the world"?, "You cannot argue with the world", "Where the world has a hand, there is my head" yes in the same herd; lagged behind - became an orphan."

The obligatory law of peace and under the prevailing system in the country, one of its amazing properties is complete freedom of speech and debate at village gatherings. Mandatory, because how could matters be resolved and judged if the members of the community did not freely express their opinions, but, fearing of offending Ivan or Peter, resorted to mischief and lies? When severe impartiality and truthful speech become the rules of life and are sanctified by tradition, they will not be abandoned even when a question that goes beyond the peasant everyday life is brought up for discussion.

Observers of our rural life are unanimous in their assertion that, while in cities the words meaning "disrespect for those in power" are whispered and trembling even in private conversation, at village gatherings people speak openly, criticize the institutions by which the townspeople are only allowed to admire, calmly condemn the highest-ranking officials of the ruling oligarchy, boldly raise the acute question of the land and often even condemn the holy person of the emperor, which would make a dignified city dweller's hair stand on end.

However, it would be wrong to conclude that such a liberty of language reveals a rebellious disposition, a rebellious spirit. Rather, it is an ingrained habit engendered by an age-old custom. The peasants do not suspect that, in expressing their opinion, they are breaking the law. They do not imagine that words, views, no matter how they are expressed, could be considered a crime. There are cases when the headman, having received revolutionary leaflets by mail, out of the simplicity of his soul, read them aloud at a village meeting as something important and curious. If a revolutionary propagandist comes to the village, he will be invited to a meeting and asked to read or tell what he finds interesting and instructive for the community. What harm can this be? And if history gets publicized, the peasants are unusually amazed to hear from the gendarmes that they have committed a grave offense. So great is their ignorance that they believe that freedom of speech is a right given to every rational being!

These are the main features of our rural self-government. There is nothing more surprising than the contrast between the regulations for the villagers and the institutions designed to guard the life of the upper strata of society. The former are essentially democratic and republican; the latter are based on imperial despotism and the strictest principles of bureaucratic power.

The inevitable result of this discrepancy, so indisputable and striking, which has existed for centuries, was one most important circumstance - the sharply revealed tendency of the Russian people to stay away from state power. This is one of its most striking properties. On the one hand, the peasant saw his world in front of him, the personification of justice and brotherly love, on the other - official Russia, represented by officials and the tsar, his judges, gendarmes, ministers, - throughout our history, the embodiment of greed, corruption and violence. In these conditions, it is not difficult to make a choice.

“It is better for the guilty to stand before the world than the innocent before the judge,” says the Russian peasant. And his ancestors said: - "Live, live, guys, until Moscow has visited."

Since ancient times, Russian people have been wary of communicating with bureaucratic Russia. Both estates have never mixed, and that is why the political evolution of generations has so little influence on the customs of millions of working people. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the life of the entire mass of the people and the life of its upper classes flowed in two close, but separate streams. The common people live in their tiny republics like a snail in a shell. For him, official Russia - officials, soldiers and police - is a horde of foreign invaders, from time to time they send their slaves to the village to collect tribute from it in money and blood - taxes for the royal treasury and recruits for the army.

However, due to an amazing irregularity - one of those strange contrasts with which, as one famous geographer put it, the Russian land is full - these original republics, enjoying such wide public and personal freedom, at the same time represent the most reliable stronghold, the strongest foundations of a despotic regime.

It is permissible to ask, by what whim of fate or whim of history this glaring anomaly occurred? How can institutions that are so blatantly at odds with our entire political system, how these peasant parliaments, can flourish under the rule of a despotic monarch?

But this anomaly is only apparent; we are not faced with a riddle of history, nor with a coincidence of unimportant circumstances. The great historical significance of the Russian system of people's self-government is the form it takes, and the ideas on which it is based are much more consistent with the political aspirations of the Russian people than autocracy and the centralized form of the existing regime. If there is something unlawful in our state structure, something imposed on the people by external and accidental phenomena, then this is despotism itself.

Apologists for the lies of the Russian peasantry and modern Western ideologists always bypass the description and even mention of the communality of the Russian character. Please note that the Stolypin reform showed that 80% (eighty!) Of the land was communal and only a part of less than 10% came out of the communal land and then in order to resell the land.

Here it is just right to mention the natural observation and foresight of V. I. Lenin, who in 1918 determined the policy of the Bolsheviks towards the peasantry.

Analyzing the experience of the first year of socialist construction in the countryside, Lenin pointed out to the participants in this construction, who had gathered at the 1st All-Russian Congress of Land Departments, Commissaries and Communes, that the Bolshevik Party considers it possible to break the age-old foundations of the old village and build the foundation of a new one - only with the participation of the peasants themselves. workers, only in accordance with their will, "persistently, patiently, by a series of gradual transitions awakening the consciousness of the working part of the peasantry."

(Lenin Soch. T. XXIII p. 398, p. 423).