On September 16, 2019, at the age of 54, the doctor of historical sciences passed away Alexander Vladimirovich Pyzhikov.
Alexander Vladimirovich Pyzhikov
In 1989 A. Pyzhikov graduated from the Faculty of History of the Moscow Regional Pedagogical Institute. N.K. Krupskaya, ten years later he defended Ph.D. thesis on historical sciences "Social and political development of Soviet society in 1953-1964." A year later, he defended his doctoral dissertation on the topic “Historical experience of the political reform of Soviet society in the 50s – 60s” (Moscow, 1999).
However, in last years Pyzhikov became widely known for his research on the schism of the Russian Church in the 17th century and the history of the Old Believers. In his writings, he tried to show that the Russian Old Believers played an important role in the revolutionary events of the early 20th century and the formation of the Soviet system. He put forward these thoughts in such books as "The Facets of the Russian Schism", "The Roots of Stalinist Bolshevism", "Soaring Over the Abyss."
A. Pyzhikov, in particular, argued:
Soviet society is a society of bespopovtsy. The merchant millionaires, who started everything with tsarism, needed capitalism, in a liberal-Western version, as in France and England. There was nothing else there. Let it be national capitalism, although even I doubt it now. Some of them, especially those close to Cornelius, like to say that they behaved like the national bourgeoisie. Only she behaved absolutely not nationally.
The Soviet team is bespopovtsy. Pop's model is a Western model, private property is sacred, and there is no talk. The bulk of the same, non-church, popovskoy - that on which the USSR grew up. They did it.
Also, Alexander Vasilievich introduced the term "Ukrainian-Polish yoke" into publicistic circulation. In an interview with Komsomolskaya Pravda, he stated:
What is the Ukrainian-Polish yoke? Of course, first and foremost is the construction of a new church. The Russian Orthodox Church under the Romanovs and earlier - these are two big differences ... Before the Romanovs, the Russian Church was very different. In the pre-Roman church there were very strong influences the fact that the church cannot be a commercial entity ... Ukraine became a source of state power for the Romanovs. They came here, and Aleksey Mikhailovich canceled all Zemsky Sobors. He did not need them ... The enslavement of the peasants also became the business of the Romanovs.
In the Old Believers, the works of A. Pyzhikov evoked ambiguous opinions. Many said that his concept was tendentious and not supported by the completeness. historical sources... Others expressed that, despite the fact that Pyzhikov's ideas are overly categorical, they have a healthy grain that allows them to look differently at the history of the Old Believers and the Russian state.
On the air of the Vesti FM radio station, held in March 2017, the historian met with the head of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, Metropolitan (Titov). At this meeting, Alexander Vladimirovich noted:
Old faith did not appear from anywhere, it has always been! It is the essence of this land. This is not even old belief, but true belief. This is the main spiritual path of our country, it is an expression of the essence of Russia itself, which in principle does not exist without the Old Belief. And where is the center of gravity in the cause of the split? The center of gravity of the Old Belief was in the people, and what was imposed had a center of gravity in the elite. And this created a split. It can be overcome only on the basis of equality. Old faith is illegitimate, as the Russian Orthodox Church declares. But how can equality of rights be achieved if Old Believers are considered illegitimate?
Readers of our site can also familiarize themselves with the correspondent of Nakanune.RU.
For more than a year in the capital's conservative political party, there has been only talk about the works of the historian Alexandra Pyzhikova... In the media, Alexander Vladimirovich is present as the author of publications about the Old Believers, the Orthodox schism of the 17th century, the economy of Russia at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries and the problems of the revolutions of 1917. One gets the feeling that his historical concept of the Russian Bolshevik-Old Believer has taken on an independent life. People are looking for their Old Believer roots, and now they explain everything incomprehensible in their native country with the Old Believer mentality. On the one hand, this is the fate of any new humanitarian idea that has managed to conquer the minds. On the other hand, over the past 30-40 years there have been too many fashionable concepts, but almost as many disappointments in them.
The correspondent of Nakanune.RU met with Alexander Pyzhikov at Zakhar Prilepin's farm, where the historian had a creative evening, and tried to understand what the essence of his ideas was, whether it was fresh historical knowledge or just another fashionable salon theme.
"Without Fedoseevites there would be no party, no you and me"
More than 20 people came to listen to the historian Pyzhikov at the weekend in Zakhar Prilepin's hut in the Moscow region. Lectures, by the way, are paid, and Moscow is not a close way, but the person of the doctor of sciences is popular here. Even before the event began, people gathered around him. We break through to ask a few questions about his relationship with modern historical science.
« There are specialists at the Institute of History who recognize my ideas, we meet and discuss. Still, I have serious work from the point of view of science, I do not look like some popular publicists who say something in the media", - Pyzhikov answers.
For those who graduated from the history department in the 2000s, his name is not empty sound, and any student who honestly prepared for seminars on the history of the USSR during the Khrushchev period is familiar with the works. In this topic, Pyzhikov is a recognized specialist, and there are no claims to a doctoral degree. However, in the media, Alexander Vladimirovich is not present as an expert on Khrushchev, but as the author of publications about the Old Believers, the Orthodox schism of the 17th century, the economy of Russia at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries and the problems of the revolutions of 1917. And in this topic, it is still far from unanimous recognition among colleagues. However, those gathered at the farmstead are looking for something fresh, philosophical and intriguing in Pyzhikov's ideas, for example, a detective story about the search for Soviet identity, and not at all strict scientific approach. introduction says the owner of the farm - Zakhar Prilepin.
« Intuitively, I guessed that the truth was somewhere in this direction. I needed someone to explain why I thought so. In the face of Pyzhikov, this man suddenly appeared. After all, this is not even a theory, but a historical reality, to which no one fully reached.", He muses.
Prilepin immediately explains that right now the theme of the national roots of the Russian revolution is becoming especially important for him.
Pyzhikov begins to talk about this with a reference to the nephew of the Slavophile writer Alexander Aksakov. His uncle, Ivan, is remembered in school as one of the founders of the Slavophile circle and the author of The Scarlet Flower, while his nephew was an official at special assignment in the Ministry of Internal Affairs under Nicholas I, where he was engaged in researching the consequences of the schism in the Russian Orthodox Church. Pyzhikov claims that from his reports to the department, with which the Minister of Internal Affairs, and possibly the Emperor himself, was definitely acquainted, it followed that the official statistics on the Old Believers did not give a real picture. It is possible that there were 10 times more Old Believers or at least those who sympathized with them in the Russian Empire in the middle of the 19th century.
« Aksakov even wrote to the minister: "We do not know what kind of Russia we are leading?" We take the data that is available, which is given everywhere, about a few percent(Old Believers - approx. On the eve.RU), we multiply them 10-11 times. As soon as we multiply, then we can somehow make a start, figure out how it really was. As a result, a picture will be presented that, thanks to Nicholas I, although he was not very happy when he received this data, we cannot delete", - says the historian.
« We are dealing with an environment that is only outwardly, officially called Orthodox, but it is not such", - he immediately adds.
At the same time, the national roots of the Russian revolution should not be sought among precisely the Old Believers. More precisely, not among those Old Believers about whom an ordinary man in the street knows at least something: the rich Moscow merchant clans. The origins of Soviet identity were not hidden in the houses of Savva Morozov and Ryabushinsky, even if they sponsored Lenin's party from there. The goals of the Old Believer merchants, according to Pyzhikov, did not go beyond the fight against the St. Petersburg financial and industrial groups. The guest of the farm proposes to pay attention to the Old Believers-bespopovtsy and already there to look for the origins of "Stalinist Bolshevism" ("The Roots of Stalinist Bolshevism" is one of his most famous books).
He immediately illustrates his thesis with a story from a life that happened to his acquaintance, an employee of the Institute of History, in the 80s. Once they were sorting through letters that came to the institution together, and came across a complaint from an old Bolshevik. The person stated in the text the essence of the problem and asked for support. For authority, he signed himself as an "old Bolshevik" and, which came as a surprise to his acquaintance Pyzhikov, a certain Fedoseev. To somehow sort out the case, the comrade took the letter to the elderly head of the sector with the question: “ The old Bolshevik is understandable. And what kind of Fedoseev?» « The Fedoseevites are those without whom neither the party nor you and I would exist. Hack your nose", - the historian quotes the answer of the elderly chief.
After some time, the lecture ends and the correspondent of Nakanune.RU Ivan Zuev has an opportunity for a more detailed conversation.
"When everything broke through in 1917, the Old Believers were already ready."
Is it not radical to say that Bolshevism emerged from the Old Believers?
I hear this often, especially from the liberals, but I hear it from the stubborn Marxist-Trotskyists too. These are all the costs of one sad circumstance: all these intellectuals of ours leaf through books, not read. If they had approached this more thoughtfully, they would have realized that there was no question of any Old Believers that had infiltrated the Communist Party, did any business there. This is an absurdity worthy of irony.
I'm not talking about practicing Old Believers. I emphasize this all the time. Of course, they were there, because the Old Believers did not disappear anywhere, despite the repressions, which no one denies either, as well as the fact that they also affected the Old Believers. I'm talking about people who came out of the Old Believer environment. Human mentality, roughly speaking, the soul is formed from the age of seven. Specifically, in the Old Believer community, from the age of seven, he was put in a “circle”, in mutual responsibility, communal, as was customary. At this age, the foundation was laid with which a person lived life. What is inherent in youth will not go anywhere. The old-believing mentality is characterized by completely certain qualities that are clear to everyone even without me: collectivism, rejection of the foreign. Then they said that people were knocked off their trousers by foreign commissars in leather jackets. Nothing of the kind, the commissars did not play any role here, it was just the way people were brought up, this is how they felt.
But doesn't this sound analogous to the thesis that Russian communism emerged from Jewish townships, or that "the Englishwoman has shit?" What's the difference?
Well, you can say so, why not? But what does this have to do with reality? None.
I'm talking about something else. Yes, there were bearers of communist ideas outside of Russia, outside the Russian people, rightly so. And these are the very same Marxists. Moreover, the communist idea is heavily involved in globalism. Global capital must be opposed by global power, which means that all national governments and nationalities go to hell. Only the struggle against world international globalism - capital - has become relevant. It is on it that the world international global proletariat must be raised.
Of course, in the Bolshevik party there were bearers of this idea, and they united around the personality of Lev Davidovich Trotsky, as well as the group he represented. Moreover, this trend was in fact the first when Marxism set foot on the land of Russia. But when all these are here historical events happened when completely different forces entered the party, which did not accept Marxism performed by Trotsky, everything changed. Trotsky himself complained about this, said that some kind of oklomons had arisen who did not understand anything and simply cling to the bright idea that he and Zinoviev represent. They said it was Marxism. And Stalin relied precisely on these forces. Which gave Trotsky a reason to say that he was a true Marxist.
However, the power, the energy that created the USSR, of course, was not charged with Trotskyism. Trotsky was an unacceptable figure for the majority, like all his comrades-in-arms, even Zinoviev, who tried to win over the Russian working class to strengthen his position, but this ruined him. When he opened the door and launched huge masses into the party in accordance with the so-called Leninist appeals, he received an enemy force against himself. So all the leadership claims and ambitions of Zinoviev melted away.
Do you mean to say that Marxism came from the West, I liked common people who somehow transformed it for themselves?
What is the specificity of Russia? The religious conflict, from which all the countries of Europe came out, in Russia happened a hundred years later, but it was no less bloody, although it took a different course. We failed to separate the warring parties. In Europe, it worked. Catholics and Protestants were divided. In Russia, two forces did not arise after the religious conflict. There was only one left. If in the West it is called the Reformation, everyone is studying it, then Russia is supposedly left without a Reformation. But, in fact, it was, just remained latent, did not break out. The catalyst for her breakthrough was 1917 and its aftermath. Here it broke through. The rivers of blood that our priests have shed ...
The religious reformation in Europe created the bourgeoisie, but with us? If the 1917 revolution is a postponed reformation, then in our country it created a communist state headed by materialists? Is that how it turns out?
Of course. Just comparing Western Protestants and Old Believers. Protestants organized around private property. For them it is sacred, whoever has more of it, God loves the same. In Russia, due to the fact that the Old Believers remained the loser, remained in a discriminatory position, they were forced to survive. There is no time for property. The situation itself forced them to turn on their collectivist mechanisms, which they had nurtured in themselves for 200 years. When it all broke in 1917, they were ready.
"I told Cornelius that there will never be a meeting with Putin - but here!"
Do you have data on how much money the Old Believers spent to support the Bolsheviks? Do you have any documents?
All this is in the police archives, you just need to pick it up, count it. I cited some documents in "The Faces of the Russian Schism", but you can find more, if you set a goal, for this I am calm. The main thing is not to mix everything together, to have attention to detail. What details do I mean?
When we use the term "Old Believers", we are not very careful. For example, we forget about "priest" and "bespopovtsy". I myself have sinned in my time. But these are completely different groups. The fact of the matter is that the Old Believers were very fragmented ...
When we say, they say, the Old Believers helped the revolution ... The "priests" helped. And what kind of "priest"? Probably 80% of Moscow millionaires belonged to the priestly estate. And it doesn't matter that Ryabushinsky had a "piece of paper", that he was a parishioner of the "Rogozhskoye cemetery", while Konovalov did not, and someone had already left for a long time. The main thing is that it was a single clan that fought for a place in the sun in the Russian economy. This clan was strongly united by pragmatism. Therefore, the same Guchkov, who was even married to a French woman and had not gone to church for a long time, was still with them. Went, did not go, all this has only local lore value. For understanding the meaning, this does not matter.
So these "priests" who grew out of the "Rogozhskoye cemetery" had absolutely clear claims to a certain role in the economy. It was a struggle between financial and industrial Moscow and St. Petersburg. And this separate story... If we are talking about bespopovtsy, then there were practically no millionaires - two or three surnames. Mostly small figures like the merchant's wife in Serpukhov, with whom Stalin either lived or did not live. At the same time, the non-popovtsy treated the priests very badly, because the Nikonians are simply enemies, and these are traitors. All this is very complicated and confusing, and this is what I am trying to figure out. And then, for example, Belkovsky comes to the "Echo of Moscow" and begins to comment on my book! Did he know anything at all?
What did he say?
Well, they say, these cliches are about how the Old Believers could end up in the Communist Party, how could such a thing come to mind?
It is clear, but in the scientific community, how do they treat your books?
Well, here's the Metropolitan (Primate of the Russian Orthodox Old Believer Church - approx. ed.) like, the scientists who are in his environment are not very friendly. But they are also engaged, as a rule, in ethnography, local history, philology. They are not used to my views on the Old Believers, they are not ready, apparently, for this. Well, I have my own scientific life - they have their own.
Did you receive any news from Cornelius, or perhaps you met?
I have visited him several times. The last time he called was when my article “The Kiev roots of the Moscow schism” came out in my Profile, and said that he had read it on the plane and he liked it. I like Cornelius myself. The contrast with our other Christian leader is very noticeable.
Cornelius is a simple man who worked at the plant for 30 years. How he lives, I myself saw, I was with him, a modest atmosphere, with the exception of some old icons, and he lives like every second Russian.
By the way, when Putin met with him, many remembered about you.
And I, by the way, told Cornelius that this would never happen, but he hoped - and so.
And now, how are the Old Believers doing, what is happening, clans, families, business?
No, there is no such thing now. Only the merchant shadows remained.
"It is indecent to be a Finno-Ugric, but is it decent to pray to Kiev?"
So, if we rely on your version of events, since there are no Old Believers, since this mentality is gone, does this mean that there will be no socialism in Russia?
He's not completely gone, it's not the morning fog.
OK then. He didn’t leave at all, albeit, but the Old Believers don’t have any money now, you yourself just said that.
You are confusing again. Soviet society is a society of bespopovtsy. The merchant millionaires, who started everything with tsarism, needed capitalism, in a liberal-Western version, as in France and England. There was nothing else there. Let national capitalism, although even I now doubt it. Some of them, especially those close to Cornelius, like to say that they behaved like the national bourgeoisie. Only she behaved absolutely not nationally. Okay, but where does this love for the Nobel, for the Azov-Don Bank, the representative office of Jewish capital come from? This was a common plot to push tsarism forward.
By the way, Nobel gave money to everyone.
With Nobel - different, he gave money to everyone. The conflict with him is important, which he had with the St. Petersburg banks, which are now considered the then "foreign influence." Although what they wanted to do was the Chinese version. Driving away from the West is far and long. The way China did it. Chinese version of the late 20th century. What they did, because of this, the 17th year and was forced. It was necessary to remove the group, which I conventionally call the Kokovtsov group (Count Vladimir Kokovtsov, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Russian Empire in 1911-1914, - approx. On the eve.RU). A peace factory, a mass of cheap labor, foreign capital — that was the goal of this group. But this path eventually became Chinese, but it would have been ours. Yes, Kokovtsov's group is bureaucratic, but in China bureaucrats also did a miracle.
The Soviet team is bespopovtsy. Pop's model is a Western model, private property is sacred, and there is no talk. The bulk of the same, non-church, popovskoy - that on which the USSR grew up. They did it. They raised all their ideas about life, about how it should be arranged, to the level of the state thanks to Stalin.
And why did everything change under Khrushchev? Has the Old Believer mentality disappeared, individualism and nostalgia for private property have appeared?
The Brezhnev group is Ukrainian, it is also called the Dnepropetrovsk group, but I do not like it, because it narrows it down. This is a different mentality - the Ukrainian front. All sorts of Chernenko, who was born in Krasnoyarsk, Shchelokov, originally from Moldova, are full members of the Ukrainian group. This group is the bearer of a completely different mentality, which has nothing to do with the Great Russian one. He is Ukrainian, kulak. No matter what costumes he dressed up, everything is one. One and the same song is heard from the Ukrainian open spaces.
It turns out that the Ukrainians staged a split for us in the 17th century, then another one in the 21st century, and they also destroyed the Union. It's somehow too simple, no?
The Southwest Gate is still the gateway to the West. The way to the West for Russia is not directly, but through Kiev. All western expansion came from there. From Vladimir Monomakh and False Dmitry to church affairs and Brezhnev's group. The trajectory is visible, how can it be denied?
And the mentality of the Soviet Ukrainians was absolutely no different from the Ukrainians from the Russian Empire?
There was no confusion. There has always been a kind of "nikonian". Even after the split, Nikonianism always had support in Ukraine. It is foreign here, it was imposed in the second half of the 17th century. Therefore, we are not talking there about such a phenomenon as unpopularity. This is a foreign church here. Designed and built on purpose. The result is 1917, when the church fell off. And in Ukraine this Church cannot fall off, because it is their own, they cannot refuse it.
Ukraine will receive autocephaly as a result, it seems. How do you feel about the fact that our media pays so much attention to this? In your opinion, probably there is no tragedy in this?
I have a bad attitude. Reproduction of the same, second half of the 17th century. That the autocephalous Ukrainian church, that ours, with all the Legoyds, Dashev's - they still hold a controlling stake there. Russian Orthodox Church. If you remove the Ukrainians from our church, it will be some kind of another church, and that church will collapse. What is the centuries-old dispute between the Ukrainian Church and Bohdan Khmelnitsky? From whom you can fuck more, from the Europeans or from us. One part says that from us, they say, they are idiots, rednecks. And they say: “ No-no-no, let's go to the West". And those to them: " No no no. You won't be able to twist Merkel there, as we are here, why do you need her?"They are engaged in these disputes among themselves, and we, a huge country, hundreds of millions of people, who are in these disputes? Even without us.
But we are used to the concept that we are the elder brother and they are the younger. It turns out that your younger brother is in control of us.
What kind of elder brother are we? When they tell me, they say, under the tsar, everyone was boiled in the same cauldron ... Well, yes, Karamzin, Tatar roots, Bagration, Georgian - all were boiled in the same cauldron. I say, correctly, there is only one boiler, but whose boiler is it? Who brought it? Who makes it? You will get into this cauldron, you admit that Kiev is the center and the beginning of the whole country, and the spiritual principle is there too. They all worked for this scheme, for those who started to cook this boiler. Even now we are not allowed to comprehend it.
Putin just doesn't seem to work very well for this scheme.
No, Putin is just acting according to the old scheme. For this one, which you designated: "elder brother" and everything else.
Okay, so we have comprehended the viciousness of the scheme "Kiev is the mother of Russian cities", and what next? I must admit that we are Mordovians, Finno-Ugrians ...
And what is better - to pray to Kiev? This, in your opinion, means indecent, but is it decent to stand and pray to Kiev? They pour mud at us, they say, we are the aggressors. We just need to flip this scheme abruptly, and that's it.
Maybe they can also make them repent?
Of course, for the genocide of 250 years, which they staged, pushing their church here, which burned the people alive. This is not a famine for you, there will be 250 such famines. There should be an offensive position, but we have one repentance.
Regarding repentance, by the way, how do you feel about "Tsar's days"?
Yes, bad, how.
Is the figure of the last emperor splitting society?
You see, I am always for the offensive. Why do you extol him, he himself spat on the Church, starting with the canonization of Seraphim of Sarov, which neither Pobedonostsev nor the bishops could allow? He broke them all over the knee. Seraphim of Sarov is a non-church tradition. It's impossible, it's the people who worship, nobody needs it, a real saint, who needs him?
1903-1904, when the heir was born, the schism begins, all sorts of Philip-fortune-tellers and rassputines appear, they actually lost the monarch as the head of the Church even then. Now they do not like to remember this. So let's spin it up. You can dig so much in the field "Nicholas II against the Church"! We must act offensively, and not stand and make excuses. They must justify themselves. Seraphim of Sarov did not need to be canonized, he is already a saint of the people.
“The father kept walking and saying:“ That's right! ”
Do the officials hear you?
Well, what are you, who do they hear at all?
And you yourself, by the way, are not an Old Believer?
On the paternal side, I have no priests of Fedoseev's consent. I didn’t restore it. Local historians told me that my village is Fedoseevskaya. Later I remembered that even during the Soviet era, when the church in the village was already abandoned, my father, when he walked by, kept saying: "That's right! .."
By the way, now the main task is to find out who the non-popovtsy are! And then we throw the term.
Didn't Soviet ethnography work it all out?
No, they worked ethnographically. But who are they in the sense of the word, are they Christians or not? It is clear that some non-Christians. In a completely unexpected way, something becomes clear through Russian epics, the texts of which were published in the middle of the 19th century. There is absolutely Christian terminology, Christian characters, but when you immerse yourself in this, you see that absolutely non-Christian things are expressed in the language of Christianity, to which Christianity has nothing to do with it. I could pull this thread and follow it, go ...
Orthodox Christians will quickly tell you where this will lead you.
Yeah, they will say, to obscurantism ( laughs).
***
Interview with Alexander Pyzhikov comments Priest John Sevastianov, rector of the Church of the Intercession of the Most Holy Theotokos in Rostov-on-Don.
***
The history of the Old Believers and their individual consents is one of the most poorly studied aspects of the history of Russia. Huge historical strata of the life of the Old Believers have not been investigated or comprehended at all. For example, such an important issue as the statistics of the Old Believers has different variations, which differ from each other several times. The Old Believers themselves did not know the answer to this question. (Bogatenkov) said so: they say, we cannot give exact information about the number of our priests and laity, we do not know how many there are, even approximately. Therefore, no matter what page of the historical chronicle of the Old Believers modern researchers touch, they all conceal, if not sensations, then serious scientific discoveries... This concerns the inner life of the Old Believers and their church organization, and the relationship between agreements, and issues of internal consolidation, and community structure, and business and social ethics, and the external relationship of zealots of the old faith with the state, with the Russian Church, with the surrounding society. All these aspects can reveal to a conscientious researcher many interesting and hitherto unknown historical information.
In particular, the issues of the attitude of Old Believers to social upheavals in Russia, to the revolutionary movement, the participation of Old Believers in these processes is a very interesting and little-studied topic that raises many questions. To what extent did the Old Believers share socialist and liberal ideas by the beginning of the 20th century? Did the Old Believers take an active part in revolutionary movement? If so, what part of the Old Believer population took part in this? How does this compare with the number of participants from other faiths in Russia? Which Old Believer consents were more active in this activity? Etc. etc. Now there are no scientific studies that would unequivocally and reasonably give answers to the questions that arise. And in this situation it is in no way possible to predetermine these answers with some unfounded statements. No matter how much the modern reader would like it, it is not worth to foretell the result of scientific research indiscriminately.
Although in this situation the opposite view is also quite acceptable. Namely, as long as academic history cannot provide answers to questions of interest to society, any hypotheses may have a right to exist. For example, the hypothesis expressed by Mr. Pyzhikov about the universal revolutionism of the Old Believers Fedoseyevites. As a working hypothesis, this statement has the right to exist. Moreover, this is not a new observation. The opinion about the revolutionary predisposition of the Old Believers was expressed by Herzen. And it should be admitted that this version has some connotation with the idea of the life of the Old Believers-Fedoseevites. Another question is, what is this hypothesis based on? But this is a completely different conversation. If this statement about the revolutionary activity of the millions of Old Believers is based on one crumpled piece of paper and the statement of some clerk from the district committee, then, to put it mildly, it is not trustworthy. If this hypothesis does not take into account the opposite facts that the Old Believers, as a religious group, were for the most part far from politics, that the Fedoseevites were not noticed in attempts to create their own party before the revolution, that the Old Believers had extremely small representation in the State Duma, which in general did not even correspond to their official number in the Empire, estimated at 2.2 million people, that none of the Old Believer delegates was elected to the Constituent Assembly - if these and similar facts are not taken into account, if not statistical observations and research, then it is not worth treating these statements as defining axioms now.
With all this, such versions are very useful in the development of historical science. They awaken the research thought, make them look for answers to the questions posed, give people the opportunity to ponder their own history, the events that are taking place, look for historical analogies and confirmations, evaluate the truth or absurdity of statements. Such thinking people become more adequate and responsible. And if some absurd and unfounded hypotheses serve to awaken the adequacy and responsibility of the nation, then let there be more such hypotheses.
Don't you think badly for me
I myself am a great power, and a chauvinist, and in general a supporter of large states and countries. Well, if only because the more people there are, the easier, easier, and even better life is. It is not for nothing that since ancient Russian times the proverb teaches: - "Gurt and dad are easier to beat"
Therefore, I read with pleasure all sorts of exposers of historical falsifications. (well, even children know that the Jewish-Masons with the Germans perverted our history in order to enslave)
But this titan of thought has overshadowed everyone
Pyzhikov, Alexander Vladimirovich
Russian historian and statesman,
specialist in the history of Russia of the XX century. Doctor of Historical Sciences.
Pyzhikov with bags, a lovely stranger and Spitsyn under the arm
.Spitsyn, Evgeny Yurievich - also a historian, and also a titan of thought, wrote a five-volume (!!!) " Complete course history of Russia for teachers ”Since the enemies of Russia refused to publish this work, he published it himself, with the money of sponsors.
He walks on them and conducts further research. (damn it! already enviable, I want that too)
...
Both of them are distinguished by their unclouded views. But Pyzhikov, in my opinion, is cooler.
His discerning mind fell on many topics, among which the following stand out: -
And from this place in more detail. The scientific work has a dramatizing, before the blood cools in the veins, the title: - "The Polish-Ukrainian conspiracy in Russian history"
Doctor of Historical Sciences Alexander Pyzhikov talks about his new book "Slavic fault". What the Kiev region brought to Russia in a meaningful, ideological, state and religious sense. What position did the Rzeczpospolita occupy on the international market, and how Ivan the Terrible violated the plans of the Polish-Lithuanian elite. Whom did the Romanovs rely on when they came to power? Why is it so important to bring back our true history.
Turns out!
It is not the Jews who are to blame for everything, and they are not kamenshiks, and not even the damned nemtchu ...
A Polish-Ukrainian Great Conspiracy to seize power in Russia
Which the (Attention!) completed successfully
And now we live under the Polish-Ukrainian yoke, enslaved up to the very throat, and from this all our troubles (and not from women, as some think)
What to do now? - you ask (I asked)
There is a recipe! - Pyzhikov confronts
ROC, as the main instrument of the conspiracy, to rename from Russian to Ukrainian
Annex Ukraine to Poland, since they are one and the same people
Choose one president from among the Old Believers, because only they are not traitors
Well, after that, how will we live!
Zadolbali, honestly the word!
Completely mind for reason went, or what? With what hangover did the Ukrainians become non-Russians?
During the latest political upheavals, some have already begun to forget that Ukrainians are Russians too
Come on! Even during the times of Soviet internationalism, this fact, although it was not emphasized, was not concealed either.
Ukrainians, like Belarusians, like Russians themselves, are one of the three big Russian peoples
United by a common origin ( Ancient Russia), language (Old Slavic) and territory of residence.
Last year, a family from Chernigov moved to Krasnodar. Over the course of a year, everyone has successfully forgotten the Ukrainian language, fully adapted to life and similarly scolds the local order - no one can distinguish it from ordinary visitors from other regions of Russia. Both children go to school, quite easily switched to language skills in Russian, and also, even if desired, you cannot distinguish them from others.
Because yours - with strangers it does not happen. Poles, even completely Russified, even in the third generation, are different. And the Ukrainians are not.
...
And therefore, wish to separate them from us, and join some Poles there.
Maybe only a fool or the last bastard (well, or not the last, but still a bastard)
Alexander Vladimirovich Pyzhikov (November 27, 1965, Ramenskoye, Moscow Region, RSFSR, USSR - September 17, 2019, Moscow, Russia) - Russian historian and statesman, specialist in the history of Russia in the 50-60s of the XX century. Doctor of Historical Sciences.
In 1989 he graduated from the history faculty of the Moscow Regional Pedagogical Institute named after N.K.Krupskaya.
In 1993, he was director of the Center for Social and Political Programs of the Youth for Russia Foundation in Ramenskoye.
In December 1993, he ran for the State Duma of the Russian Federation on the list of the electoral association "The Future of Russia - New Names", but was not elected with 1.25% of the votes. In 1995, he ran as a candidate for the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation of the second convocation in the Kurgan region on the list of the electoral bloc "Ivan Rybkin's Bloc", was not elected.
Since 1994 - Director of the Information and Analytical Center of the Central Committee of the Russian Youth Union.
He was Deputy Director of the Institute for Social and Political Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
In 1998 he defended his thesis for the degree of candidate of historical sciences on the topic "Social and political development of Soviet society in 1953-1964." (specialty 07.00.02 - "Russian history").
In 1999 he defended his thesis for the degree of Doctor of Historical Sciences on the topic "Historical experience of the political reform of Soviet society in the 50s-60s" (specialty 07.00.02 - "Russian history").
In 2000-2003, Assistant to the Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation M.M. Kasyanov.
From June 5, 2003 to June 18, 2004 - Deputy Minister of Education Russian Federation... In this position, he was involved in quality control of education and state certification in educational institutions of all types and types.
Books (6)
Facets of the Russian split. Notes on our history from the 17th century to 1917
The book presents a view of Russian history through the prism of the Russian religious schism.
The upheavals that occurred in Russia and caused by church reforms in the mid-17th century had big influence na development of the country in the next two centuries. The complex processes that were taking place then left an imprint on the entire social fabric of Russian society. It is in the confessional identity that the origins of the key events in our history, associated with the crash at the beginning of the 20th century, lie. Russian empire in her Nikonian guise.
The roots of Stalinist Bolshevism
Much has been written about the revolution and Stalin, but in this work the author proposes to look at our history in a new way.
The book is based on a look at the difference between Leninist and Stalinist Bolshevism. These two currents had different origins, social base, ideological aspirations. It would not be an exaggeration to say that they were united only by an external "sign" and a set of common slogans, which in many respects limits their similarity. Understanding this circumstance opens up new horizons not only from a scientific, but also from a practical point of view. Allows you to more deeply comprehend the turbulent events of the domestic XX century. The book will be of interest to everyone who is not indifferent to the history of their country.
Peter - Moscow. Fight for Russia
For a long time, almost until October 1917, the views of Petersburgers and Muscovites about the modernization of Russia were very different. Petersburg pursued its own path, which was implemented by the state elite and the capital's entrepreneurial group, and the role of the opponent was played by the Moscow merchants and the Cadet party, guided by completely different ideological priorities.
What is the root of the eternal confrontation between the two great cities of Russia - St. Petersburg and Moscow? Why is the historical canvas of our common past replete with episodes of their confrontation, conflict and competition?
Alexander Pyzhikov, Doctor of Historical Sciences, author of the books "The Birth of a" Superpower ": the USSR in the first post-war years"," Khrushchev Thaw "," The Faces of the Russian Schism ", gives readers an opportunity to take a fresh look at many key points and significant milestones Russian history.
The birth of a superpower: 1945-1953
The book discusses critical stage history of Soviet society - the period 1945-1953. Analyzing various aspects of the foreign and domestic policy of the USSR, the authors attempt to comprehensively assess the post-war Soviet society.
The research is based on unique archival documents, many of which are being introduced into scientific circulation for the first time. The wide source base made it possible to clarify a number of issues of the country's international policy, the functioning of the party and state power, the ideological system, etc.
Slavic fault. Ukrainian-Polish yoke in Russia
Why is Kiev and the southwestern principalities considered to be the center of all Russian history? By whose will the no less ancient North (Novgorod, Pskov, Smolensk, Ryazan) or the Volga region are considered, as it were, second-rate?
This book shows with merciless clarity why the entire Russian history is presented exclusively from pro-Western, South Slavic and Polish positions. The facts gathered here indicate that we are not talking about a coincidence of circumstances, but about the purposeful centuries-old occupation of Russia, about the total spiritual and religious dictatorship of the Polonized public, skillfully covering up its domination. It was its representatives, who became the main pillar of the Romanov throne, who constructed the state-religious framework, which to this day is blocking the memory of our population. Various Germans and others, who have poured into the elite since the time of Peter I, only refurbished the building that was not erected by them.
This book will be a revelation for many, since the proposed historical perspective is too unusual.
Khrushchev's "Thaw" 1953-1964
"Thaw" ... This is how the stage of development of our country, associated with the name of NS Khrushchev, is characterized.
In the 60s of our century, this time attracted Special attention specialist historians. Assessment of this period national history today is largely based on the works of researchers and publicists of the late 80s, early 90s of the XX century. To what extent do the views of these years correspond to the objective processes taking place in the first post-Stalin decade? Do we understand correctly the meaning and place of Khrushchev's reforms in our history?
This book attempts to answer these questions.
Reader Comments
Helena/ 12.12.2019 The Great Man left us on the rise of the creative exploration life. How many valuable discoveries we will never know. A terrible blow to Russian science. The loss is irreparable.
Alexander Vladimirovich put me on the rails of my kind, opened the Russian world to me, showed me in which direction to move, what to value, and from what to protect myself forever. He gave me wings, he gave me courage. There was a friend nearby, and now ... I did not have time to thank Alexander for the wonderful books. I thought, I'll sit down, concentrate and write thank you letter... Didn't write. (When will we learn to be grateful here and now!) My heart cannot accept heavy loss.
My condolences to the family. A prominent scientist Alexander Pyzhikov took place surrounded by caring relatives.
Blessed memory of him.
Kiev
Olga/ 15.11.2019 I literally read his first lecture and realized that this is the Spark of Truth. Itself ignited from him .... here I look further, and there is the news of his death. Well, can't it be, when will it end? As soon as there is an outlet for the soul, the end is one. Condolences for the pain and loss ...
Helena/ 20.10.2019 Pyzhikov is a light in the darkness of history. It is a pity that I did not manage to publish the planned books. I read and listen and write
I'm trying to be true. I am very grateful to him.
Alna/ 19.10.2019 The pain of loss! She cried as if for her own! I hope that there will be young people who will name their son in his honor, Alexander!
Vyacheslav/ 10/18/2019 I agree with all of the above. It hurts from the death of such a bright person. Who will raise his banner? Who will continue what they started.
KONSTANTIN ALEXEENKO/ 09/29/2019 A great, wise and honest man with a big Russian soul left us. Glory to Alexander Vladimirovich.
Ludmila/ 09/23/2019 Too deeply and truthfully revealed the secrets of those who did not like it .. I do not believe that I did not help to leave .. grieve .. Blessed Memory of a Bright Person ..
Marina Shubina/ 19.09.2019 The thrill of HIS WISE HEART resounds in our SOULS and we say YES! Truth, Ancestors, Love, LIFE! Is it possible to leave Life? The thrill of Life is eternal, as long as we remember and love and think with our hearts.
Russian Ladder/ 19.09.2019 Alexander Pyzhikov.
Sweet, plump with the eyes of a kind child ...
This is a flash!
Brighter than the Chelyabinsk meteorite.
His death is not accidental in every sense.
It just so happened that only she highlights the Truth in such a way that it hurts the eyes.
On the night of Alexander's death, I had a correspondence with Hasai Aliyev about him.
Like, they need to cooperate. They say that they have one idea about the unity of all peoples by someone and for some reason separated. It doesn't matter that the contact failed all at once. No matter!
***
Now it’s for sure - it’s not important.
To the delight of enemies or to them on the mountain, the gorge into the Otherworld, having managed to light a torch in the darkness of lies.
What a pity...
I didn't even think that someone from the computer would catch the heart like that ...
***
I feel like a personal loss.
Without hesitation, I put him on a par with Seraphim of Sarov.
There is no need to waste letters on the presentation of his works.
Listen to yourself and let, finally, pain and happiness become simultaneous.
Let our hardened Slavic heart get wet and break with sorrow and Truth.
For a long time I could not understand why Professor Pyzhikov does not like Ukraine.
He seems to be a decent person, he wrote a good book about the Old Believers.
A week ago I met him at a sushi bar on Maroseyka *
, listened for an hour and understood.
From Pyzhikov's point of view, the Ukrainian authorities have ruled Russia for the last 400 years. The Romanovs, starting with Alexei Tishaishy, relied on the people of Kiev, eradicating the Russian in the Russians
- the Ukrainians have imposed on us this Kiev, these Slavs, this damned Europe.
- I mean, imposed? Russia - not Europe, Russians - not Slavs?
- No! I found in the archives a book written in 1868. Vladimir Stasov. There he proves that Russian epics - about Ilya Muromets, about Dobrynya Nikitich - were actually stolen from the Turks.
- ?
- Ukrainians who came to Moscow took the local epic, which is all Turkic, and repainted it in Slavic. so that the Russians think they are Slavs.
- and in fact?
- Yes, she went to hell, this Ukraine! together with Europe and the Slavs! imposed on us this Dnieper, this mother of Russian cities. Why do we need all this? forget Ukraine. we are Turks. we have more in common with Kyrgyz and Uzbeks
- calls the waitress
- Sadgul honey, bring a kettle of milk oolong
- tiny Sadgul, smiling snow-white, nods and hurries to the kitchen
- Russians need to return to their father's house
- looks thoughtfully at the girl's dark as night hair
- China, India, the Great Silk Road, Central Asia. there are our values. and this Ukraine, these values
-
waves his hand dismissively
- Ukrainians want to go to Europe ...
- and great! let them go! you will throw off the idea of Europe imposed on us by the Ukrainians and breathe freely. maybe for the first time in 400 years
-
Sadgul brought a kettle, the professor looks at her with affection
-thanks honey
- will you still order?
- take your time, honey. do not rush.
* * *
Alexander V. Pyzhikov
Chief Researcher at RANEPA, Doctor of Historical Sciences, laureate of the Yegor Gaidar Prize in the category "For Outstanding Contribution to History", author of the book "The Facets of the Russian Schism: Notes on Our History from the 17th Century to 1917".
2000-2003 Assistant to the Prime Minister of the Russian Federation.
From June 5, 2003 to June 18, 2004 - Deputy Minister of Education of the Russian Federation.
*
Maroseyka- "Little Russian" distorted by the aborigines - the name of the district where the very same Ukrainians invited to Moscow to guide the education of Muscovites, about whom Professor Pyzhikov speaks, settled.
P.S.
To complete the picture, it is necessary to clarify here that another modern Russian historian considers the Tatars not as Türks, but as Finno-Ugrians:
Moreover, I will tell you a secret: Russians and Tatars are very close in origin. Because the blood of the Finno-Ugric peoples flows at the base of both.
Neither the Russian nor the Tatar intelligentsia want to admit this. Or they just don't know about it.
And the data of geneticists show just that. And it is not difficult to guess ourselves, because the ancient inhabitants of the Eastern European forests and forest-steppes are "erased" in the history of the Finno-Ugric peoples.
And only then the Slavs and Turks came here. Moreover, they did not make up the majority, but conveyed their language, part of their culture and self-awareness.
Therefore, I would have changed the saying long ago: "Scrape the Russian, scrape off the Tatar", into a historically more correct one: "Scratch the Russian, scrape off the Finno-Ugric."