originally an ideological and ideological, then also a socio-political movement, based on the concept of Eurasia as an independent “geographical and historical world” (Savitsky, 1927), located between Europe and Asia and differing from both in geopolitical and cultural terms. As an organized movement E. arose by 1921 among young Russian intellectuals. emigration, who put forward a program for transforming the entire system of cultural and ideological attitudes, the result of which was to be a spiritual disengagement from Europe, designed to open for Russia and neighboring countries that together make up Eurasia, a new path of spiritual and socio-political development peculiar only to them.
History of E.
For the first time, the ideas of E. as a clearly expressed direction of thought were voiced publicly on June 3, 1921, at a meeting of the religious and philosophical circle in Sofia in the reports of Prince. N. S. Trubetskoy (1890-1938) and G. V. Florovsky (1893-1979). In the beginning. Aug. In the same year, a collection of articles came out of print, entitled “Exodus to the East: Premonitions and Accomplishments” (Statement of the Eurasians; Book 1). According to one of the authors of the collection, P. N. Savitsky (1895-1968), the articles of the Eurasian collection differed sharply from the vast majority of modern. his works in their life-affirming tone: the events connected with the revolution in Russia were assessed by the authors as a decisive cataclysm world history, as something that reveals the "truth of religious principles."
The founders of the E. movement and the authors of the collection were 5 young Russians. emigrants: book. A. A. Liven (1896-1949), after. a priest who inspired friends to publish a Eurasian collection, but did not publish anything in it, linguist and philosopher N. S. Trubetskoy, philosopher, theologian, cultural historian G. Florovsky (last priest), musicologist and publicist P. P. Suvchinsky (1892 -1985), geographer and economist Savitsky. Soon they were joined by the historian of literature and literature. book critic. D. P. Svyatopolk-Mirsky (1890-1939), historian and philosopher L. P. Karsavin (1882-1952), historian G. V. Vernadsky (1887-1973), jurist and philosopher N. N. Alekseev (1879- 1964). For some time, historian M. V. Shakhmatov (1888-1943), culturologist P. M. Bitsilli (1879-1953) and others joined the Eurasian movement.
E. passed through 3 stages in its development. 1st - the shortest, but the most fruitful - lasted until the end. 1923 - early. 1924 During this period, the main subject of Eurasian thinking was the rationale for the need for Russia's original path of development. This originality was interpreted in various ways by the leading representatives of the Eurasian movement, since already at the time of the birth of E., its founders tried to reconcile at least 3 different worldviews: Savitsky's naturalism, N. Trubetskoy's cultural centrism, and Florovsky's Christocentrism. The ideas of each of the participants in the movement fertilized the thoughts of the others, made it possible to feel the measure of the conventionality of any formulation and prompted them to take care of the general spiritual context of thought. In the early Eurasian works it is difficult to establish the authorship of individual ideas, while the need for their rigid systematization and simplification, caused by external reasons, eventually led to a violation of mutual understanding, and then to a split and degradation of the movement. The initial success of E. was due to the fact that at an early stage of the existence of the movement, the Eurasians realized that in Russia it was not political scholasticism that could contribute to the upbringing of a large-scale personality and the development of the country, but, according to Florovsky's formulation, "Orthodoxy as a path of creativity."
K ser. 20s there is an organizational registration of the Eurasian movement: to the end. In 1924, at a meeting in Vienna, its governing body was created - the Supreme Eurasian Council, headed by N. Trubetskoy, the council also included the heads of Eurasian branches in other countries: P. S. Arapov (Berlin), P. N. Malevsky - Malevich (London, New York), Savitsky (Prague), V. A. Storozhenko (Belgrade), Suvchinsky (Paris). At the same time, the main ideas of E. began to be questioned by its founders: in 1923, Florovsky broke with E., who openly expressed dissatisfaction with the strengthening of the political component of the movement (E. Blaine. Biography of Father George // George Florovsky: Clergyman, theologian, philosopher / Translated from English, edited by Yu. P. Senokosov, Moscow, 1995, p. 31). Inside E., a gradual division into 2 main directions begins - “right” and “left”. Alekseev, Ya. A. Bromberg, Savitsky, N. Trubetskoy, K. A. Chkheidze and others belonged to the most famous "right" Eurasians. , S. Ya. Efron and others. Theoretical Eurasian seminars of the “leftists” were held in places. Clamart near Paris, in connection with which their name appeared - "Clamart group"; the split that arose between the "right" and "left" Eurasians was called the "Clamard split" (see: Makarov. 2006, p. 106).
After leaving for the con. 20s From active participation in the movement of N. Trubetskoy, Karsavin took the place of the ideological leader, but he later announced a break with E. The most obvious reason for the decline of the Eurasian movement was the gradually formed among some representatives of E. the conviction that the movement should reorient its activities from philosophical and cultural to purely propaganda and focus on the mass reader who does not have a high cultural level. At the same time, the Eurasian movement became the object of attention of the GPU, which considered the widespread dissemination of Eurasian ideas beneficial for the Soviet regime, since Yekaterinburg was an alternative to the ideas of the White emigration, which sought to restore the Russian Empire, and was conciliatory towards the communist government. Thus, the Eurasianist Chkheidze even expressed the hope that it would be possible to gradually transform the Bolshevik Party into the E Party. Soviet intelligence officers managed to gradually infiltrate Eurasian circles and convince their leaders that secret Eurasian need ideological guidance from emigrants, following. which the activity of the movement became extremely politicized. In Jan. - Feb. In 1927, with the participation of the GPU, Savitsky was organized an “illegal” trip to the USSR to get acquainted with the internal Russian situation and the new “Eurasians” - until the end of his days he was convinced that he really met with representatives of E. in the USSR, while in reality they were agents GPU (Makarov, Matveeva 2007, p. 125). In 1924, the Eurasians received free of charge from the British. Spaulding's subject a large sum of money, which was directed to the formation of a political organization. The activity of the Eurasians increased immediately for several. directions: printed publications, circles, seminars were organized; in 1927, even a military organization of the Eurasians was created.
The 2nd stage ended with the start of publication in November. 1928 in Paris gas. "Eurasia", which was published for 10 months under the editorship of the "left" Eurasians Suvchinsky, Arapov, Efron, Karsavin, Malevsky-Malevich, Svyatopolk-Mirsky, and took an openly pro-Soviet position, which caused a split within E. and the loss of influence in emigrant circles . The release of the newspaper led to the exit from the organization of its ideological inspirer N. Trubetskoy, as well as discrediting E. in the eyes of the emigrant public. Savitsky, Alekseev and Chkheidze published a protest against the publication, which claimed to be the mouthpiece of E., after. they succeeded in cutting off the newspaper's funding, which in Oct. 1929 led to its closure. In 1928, with sharp criticism of E. in w. "Modern Notes" was published by Florovsky, who accused the Eurasianists of departing from the originally proclaimed tasks (Florovskiy, 1928). In con. the same year, the Supreme Eurasian Council collapsed. In Jan. 1929 was formed by the Eurasian administrative committee headed by Savitsky; in 1931, the 1st Eurasian Congress was held, which elected the Central Committee of the Eurasian movement under the chairmanship of Savitsky. At this time, there was also a gradual change in the qualitative composition of E. - the "scientists" were replaced by emigrant youth. All R. 30s the activities of the "left" Eurasians are coming to naught, many of them returned to the USSR, where, despite their sympathetic attitude towards the Soviet authorities, they were subjected to repression.
In the 20-30s. In order to disseminate and promote their ideas, the Eurasians published, in addition to the 1st collection “Exodus to the East”, 6 more with the general name of the series “Assertion of the Eurasians”: Book. 2 - "On the tracks" (Berlin, 1922); Book. 3, 4, 5 - "Eurasian Time" (Berlin, 1923, 1925, P., 1927); Book. 6 - "Eurasian collection" (Prague, 1929); Book. 7 - "Thirties" (P., 1937). From 1929 to 1937, collections of articles under the title "Eurasian Chronicles" were published (Berlin, Prague, Paris), the first 5 collections were published in lithographed form; also published were "Eurasian Notebooks" (P., 1934-1936. Issues 1-6), "Eurasian" (Brussels, 1929-1935. Issues 1-25). IN different time Eurasian circles functioned in Paris, Prague, Berlin, Brussels, the Balkans and the Baltics.
The 3rd and last stage of the existence of E. ended in 1939 as a result of the introduction of german into Czechoslovakia. troops. During this period, the Eurasian org-tion was preserved mainly by the efforts of Savitsky. The main result of the activity of the Eurasianists at this stage is not so much the occasional renewed print media as their extensive correspondence, in which the successes and failures of the movement are analyzed and a wide intellectual and spiritual context is revealed, outside of which the movement cannot be understood and dignity appreciated.
Great importance in the history of Russian. emigration had a social and political activity of some representatives of E., not directly connected with the Eurasian ideas. In 1932, Savitsky took an active part in the organization of the Russian Defense Movement (ROD), the main task of which was recognized as the ideological and practical assistance to the USSR in view of the military threat from Germany and Japan. In a statement filed in the name of I.V. Stalin on January 5. 1947, Savitsky wrote: “During ... a speech (in 1934 in Prague. - A. S.) ... I declared that I was personally ready to take a rifle in my hands and defend the frontiers with a rifle in my hands Soviet Union from any hostile attempt on them. In the face of the danger that then threatened our Fatherland ... I called for a firm stand on the defensive positions of every Russian loyal to his Motherland, including emigrants ”(CA FSB of Russia. D. R-39592. L. 125). The Eurasianists A.P. Antipov, Chkheidze and Alekseev also took a direct part in the activities of the defense movement. However, despite the pro-Soviet activities during the Second World War, after its completion, many. Eurasians were subjected to repression: in 1945, the Prague task force "Smersh" arrested 4 members of the Prague Eurasian group: Antipov, Savitsky, Chkheidze and I. S. Beletsky; they were deported to the USSR and spent many years in the camps. It is in the muzzles. In the camp, the first contacts arose between Savitsky and L.N. Gumilyov, which were continued in Czechoslovakia, where Savitsky returned after his release in 1955. According to I.P. their most significant contribution to science and was sure that E. is a program for the future, which is destined to be implemented someday.
In the USSR, interest in E. revived in the con. 80s XX century, primarily due to the publications and speeches of Gumilyov (who was in correspondence with Savitsky in the 60s), who called himself “the last Eurasian” (see: Gumilyov L. N. Notes of the last Eurasian // Our heritage 1991. No. 3. P. 19-34), as well as thanks to the opened access to archival materials on the history of E., collected by P. Savitsky (GARF. F. R-5783. P. N. Savitsky Fund). A new surge of interest in E., which led to the formation of a number of neo-Eurasian movements, arises in the 90s. after. the collapse of the USSR, becoming one of the forms of searching for a new cultural, national and historical identity in Russia and in a number of CIS countries. At the same time, representatives of neo-Eurasianism are most interested in the geopolitical ideas of classical E., while religious. component of the Eurasian doctrine (and above all the recognition of Orthodoxy as the spiritual center of Russian culture and life) has not yet received due attention and further development.
A. V. Sobolev
Idea content E.
It has rather deep roots and goes back to Rus. intellectual movements. XX century, as well as to the historical and philosophical constructions of the representatives of Slavophilism (especially early, in particular, there is a connection between E. and some of the ideas of A. S. Khomyakov), N. Ya. Danilevsky, K. N. Leontiev, V. F. Ern and V. O. Klyuchevsky. In 1913, G. Vernadsky, as a result of studying the history of Muscovite Rus' and researching the role of the Mong. conquest in Russian history came to conclusions that coincide with the main provisions of Bud. E. In 1920, N. Trubetskoy published in Sofia a small brochure “Europe and Humanity”, in which, by his own admission, he expressed thoughts that had developed “more than 10 years ago” (Trubetskoy N. S. Europe and Humanity // He, 2007. P. 81). Trubetskoy's book is permeated with common for Bud. Eurasianists anti-Western mood. In particular, he noted the inherent European. aggressiveness in culture, which found shape in the ideology of Eurocentrism. Neighboring cultures that fall under the influence of this ideology acquire a certain “inferiority complex” and set themselves the false task of catching up with the West. Trubetskoy pointed out the perniciousness for non-Europeans. peoples of the process of imposing an alien Europe. culture, because it deprives the autochthonous cultures of their creative potential. According to Trubetskoy, the claims of the culture developed by the Romano-Germanic peoples to universality and “all-humanity” are without any foundation: “European culture is not the culture of mankind” (Ibid., p. 87). Each culture is of independent value and cannot be considered as inferior or superior to another. That's why correct setting The task of development lies not in the pursuit of allegedly advanced peoples, but in self-knowledge, in the most complete realization by the people of their own cultural uniqueness. Savitsky developed the rudiments of Eurasian views in 1916 in connection with work on assessing the prospects for Russia's industrial development.
The key ideas of E. were explicitly expressed already in Sat. "Exodus to the East". In the preface to the collection, a picture of a global catastrophe is given, most of all manifested in the spiritual death of the West and the destruction of the former Russia. The way out of this catastrophe, according to the authors of the collection, is possible only on the path of turning to the East, unlike the West, which has retained its creative forces and is able to give a new impetus to the development of culture. Along with this, the concept of “Eurasians” is introduced in the preface: “Russian people and people of nations” Russian world are neither Europeans nor Asians. Merging with the native and surrounding elements of culture and life, we are not ashamed to recognize ourselves as Eurasians” (Exodus to the East, 1921, p. VII). Distinguished by great stylistic and semantic diversity, the articles represent the development of individual topics close to one or another author. In particular, Florovsky and Suvchinsky focused on a fundamental and broad critique of a hopelessly rationalistic, war-ravaged and dying West, as well as an analysis of the catastrophe of Rus. history and community development which led to the unprecedented brutality of the communist revolution. The articles by Savitsky and N. Trubetskoy, on the contrary, were rather not retrospective, but perspective, being devoted to theoretical development concept of "Eurasia". In Art. "Migration of culture" Savitsky built a theory of climatic and geographical displacement of the world's geopolitical centers in a historical perspective and tried to prove that cultural and political leadership in the world with the need to move from Europe to the territory of Europe. parts of Russia and the West. Siberia; in Art. "Continent-Ocean", he proposed the original concept of "continental economy", created taking into account geographical location Eurasia. N. Trubetskoy in Art. "The Tops and Bottoms of Russian Culture" singled out a special Eurasian cultural type, formed as a result of the integration of glories. and Turanian culture and sharply different in its main features from the European one; in Art. “On True and False Nationalism”, he criticized various forms of incorrect nationalist consciousness and set the main characteristics of the “true nationalism” necessary for the construction and preservation of the Eurasian culture, which should be entirely based on the self-knowledge of the people and the result of which is the restructuring of national culture in the spirit of identity. The program work of Savitsky and N. Trubetskoy essentially determined 2 main vectors for the further development of Eurasian ideas: geopolitical and historical and cultural (cf.: Riasanovsky . 1967. P. 61). In subsequent works, the problems identified in the 1st collection were developed by Eurasian authors in more detail, gradually forming into a system of views that could be reconstructed.
Geographic research
Savitsky were the most important component of the scientific basis of the Eurasian theory. According to Savitsky, Eurasia is a closed and self-sufficient "geographical world", the "Middle Continent", the unity of which is not violated by the Ural Mountains. The territory of Eurasia itself is made up of 3 plains: East European (“White Sea-Caucasian”), West Siberian and Turkestan (see: Vernadsky, 2000, p. 23). To prove the geographical unity of Eurasia, Savitsky developed the theory of horizontal geographical and climatic zones. He singled out 4 similar zones: desert, steppe, forest and tundra, forming, as it were, stripes elongated along the “east-west” line. The spherical device of the Earth makes the south. the stripes are more extensive than the northern ones. In turn, large geographical zones are subdivided into smaller ones, each of which is characterized by a special combination of vegetation and soil. To explain the geographic self-sufficiency of Eurasia, Savitsky developed the theory of "south-north geographic symmetry". In his opinion, the tundra in the north is symmetrically correlated with the desert in the south, swamps and forests - with the steppe, etc. The core of this symmetry is the steppe: according to the Eurasianists, whoever owns the steppe owns Eurasia. Mutual ordering natural areas makes Eurasia a "closed unity" and allows it in a certain way to influence the cultural formation of the peoples inhabiting it. To indicate this influence, Savitsky introduced the term "local development". This expression was supposed to indicate that the natural environment not only undergoes certain changes as a result of human activity, but also in a certain way influences the formation of the cultural and social life of the peoples inhabiting it. According to Savitsky, local development is a more important factor in the formation of culture than the genetic factor of the origin of its bearers. The place of development forms the race, then, in accordance with this influence, creates for itself a stable cultural environment, gradually developing into a special cultural type. Thus, according to Savitsky, the Eurasian cultural type (added by Savitsky to the traditional 10 cultural types of Danilevsky) has roots in Eurasia as the habitat of the peoples belonging to it, and therefore can properly develop its creative potential only by realizing the opportunities laid down in the features of its location (Savitsky, 1927, pp. 30, 32-39, 47, 50-57).
Cultural-linguistic substantiation E.
was carried out in detail in the works of N. Trubetskoy. According to Trubetskoy, the concept of "individuality" is applicable not only to the individual, but also to the people. The sense of national belonging, which unites people into a single people, makes it possible to describe peoples as multipersonal individuals. In turn, Eurasia, being inhabited by many. ethnically different peoples, which are united by a sense of belonging to a common geographical and cultural space, can be defined as a multinational individuality (Trubetskoy . 1924, p. 4), the population of which is one “multinational nation” (He. Pan-Eurasian Nationalism // Eurasian Chronicle, P., 1927, issue 9, p. 28), held together by a single culture. It is the culture rooted in national self-consciousness, according to the Eurasians, that determines the “face” of the people and the prospects for its development. Proceeding from such ideas, Florovsky was ready to define “the starting point from which the whole system of statements develops” of the Eurasians as “the primacy of culture over the public”, i.e. over political and social realities (see: Florovsky G.P. Letter to P. B. Struve on Eurasianism // RM, 1922, book 1/2, pp. 267-274).
The general understanding of the term “culture” by the Eurasians and their attitude to various teachings about “cultural progress” was expressed by Savitsky: “Eurasians adjoin those thinkers who deny the existence of universal progress. This is defined by... the concept of "culture". If the line of evolution runs differently in different areas, then there cannot be and there is no general upward movement, there is no gradual general improvement: this or that cultural environment ... improving in one and from one point of view - often falls in another and from another point of view . This provision is applicable, in particular, to the “European” cultural environment: it bought its scientific and technical perfection, from the point of view of the Eurasians, by ideological and, most of all, religious impoverishment” (Savitsky P.N. Eurasianism // Eurasian Timepiece. 1925. Book. 4. S. 13-14). Proceeding from such an understanding of "culture", supporters of E. recognized the equivalence of the cultures of various peoples, pointing out that the Romano-German. Western culture cannot and should not be considered a measure of the level of “civilization” of other peoples (cf. Trubetskoy, 1920, pp. 6, 13). Rejecting the desire to bring all cultures to the "common denominator" of universal Europe. culture, the Eurasians believed that the features and originality of c.-l. individual culture only increase its significance.
According to N. Trubetskoy, the emergence and development of a special Russian. culture is associated with the interpenetration of 2 cultural and ethnic communities: the Slavs and the Turanian East (i.e., the peoples of the Ural-Altai group: Finno-Finns, Turks, Mongols, etc.), moreover, the connections of the East. Slavs with Asiatic. peoples were much more important for the formation of Russian. culture than their connection with app. Slavs. In support of this thesis, N. Trubetskoy cited elements of the original Slavic-Turanian culture, preserved by the Russians. "bottom": the original rhythmic structure of folk music and dance, Turanian elements in applied folk art, special character traits (primarily "daring", reckless courage), unusual for Western. Slavs and incomprehensible to the peoples of the West. According to the Eurasians, in Russian. culture was consistently influenced by the South, East and West. The decisive influence on the formation of Russian. culture was influenced by the perception of Orthodoxy from Byzantium (South): “The Byzantine heritage armed the Russian people with the system of ideas necessary for creating a world power” (Vernadsky, 2000, p. 33). However, the potential of Orthodoxy inherited from Byzantium. state-forming culture would have remained unrealized if it were not for the influence of the East, which became the result of Mong. Russian conquests. lands. It was the "alloy" of these 2 influences that created a special cultural type, up to the 18th century. successfully resisted Western attempts to assimilate it. The Eurasianists considered the violation of the internal cultural unity of the people to be the main reason that led to the deplorable state of the modern. them of Russia; There is only one way out of this crisis - the reconstruction of an original culture based on the Byzantines. faith and Turanian statehood.
Eurasians saw a special cultural mission of Russia-Eurasia in overcoming the contradictions and disagreements between the local cultures of the East and West, in its unifying potential: “Only to the extent that Russia-Eurasia fulfills its vocation, can and does become an organic whole the totality of diverse cultures of the Old Continent, the contradiction between East and West is removed ”(Savitsky P.N. Geographical and geopolitical foundations of Eurasianism // He. 1997. P. 297). The true unity of Eurasia is cultural, therefore “the tasks of unification are the tasks of cultural creativity” (Ibid.). According to Vernadsky, “the strength of the Russian element in the Eurasian world cannot rest on external coercion and regulation of the external framework. This strength is in free cultural creativity” (Vernadsky, 2000, p. 262). This creativity should play a unifying and conciliatory role: “In the face of Russian culture in the center of the Old World, a new independent force has grown to a unifying and conciliatory role. It can solve its problem only in interaction with the cultures of the surrounding peoples. In this regard, the cultures of the East are just as important to her as the cultures of the West. In such an appeal simultaneously and evenly to the East and West is a feature of Russian culture and geopolitics ”(Savitsky P.N. Geographical and geopolitical foundations of Eurasianism // He. 1997. P. 297).
N. Trubetskoy also used his own developments in phonology and comparative linguistics to substantiate cultural ideas, arguing that within the framework of Proto-Indo-European. Praslav language. the dialect was closer to Proto-Iranian (i.e., Turanian) than to Western. dialects. R. O. Yakobson (1896-1982), who joined the Eurasians for some time, while studying the geographical distribution of languages, came to the conclusion that there are not only “ language families”, but also special “linguistic communities”, which is Eurasia. This is confirmed by the fact that the Eurasian languages have certain similarities that are not found in other languages of Europe and Asia, even if they are related to them in other ways (see: Jacobson. On phonological language unions. 1931).
Economic doctrine E.
developed by Savitsky, based on geographical and cultural background. In accordance with his developments, the economic model for the development of large continental states differs from the model applicable to countries that have free access to the seas (or oceans) or are surrounded by them. For economic development continental countries, the most important thing is not the development of foreign maritime trade, but the build-up economic interconnections between neighboring continental regions: “In the awareness of “continentality” and in adapting to it - the economic future of Russia” (Savitsky P.N. Continent-Ocean // Exodus to the East. 1921. P. 125). Considering the continental states self-sufficient in the economic sense, Savitsky believed that their economic development should be directed not outward, but inward: in particular, the most important factor in the development of Russian. economy, he recognized not trade with distant countries, but the development of his own industry and Agriculture, the creation of internal closed economic cycles. To do this, Savitsky considered it necessary to create a decentralized industry, concentrated not in one, but in many. equidistant industrial zones, which, in addition to solving the main task - the development of the natural resources of the territory - could also have a positive impact on the development of remote regions of Russia (Savitsky. 1932. P. 11, 93, 168). Touching upon the issue of the form of ownership, Savitsky noted that the most suitable for Eurasia would be a combination of state. and private property. Private property, according to Savitsky, is the backbone of any economy, therefore "not Marx's expropriation, but the "master's appreciation of the economy" is ... the main fact of the economic sphere" (GARF. T. 5783. Op. 1. D. 357. L. 38 ). At the same time, Mr. regulation and financing will always be necessary for coordination between remote regions of the country, as well as for various economic projects that require a long time and large resources for their implementation (for example, road construction) (Savitsky P.N. On the issue of public and private beginning Industry // Evraziyskiy Vremennik, 1927, book 5, pp. 285-308). Savitsky noted the positive significance of the industrialization course pursued by the Soviet government for the economic development of Russia, as well as the importance and usefulness of the "internal organizing features" of the USSR, but believed that if such processes had taken place without the participation of the Bolsheviks, they would have turned out to be much less painful and painful for the country.
Historical constructions
ideologically connected with E., developed by Ch. arr. G. Vernadsky. According to him, history is a spontaneously unfolding process: “The historical process is elemental: basically, it is set in motion by forces deeply embedded in it, independent of the wishes and tastes of individual people” (Vernadsky, 2000, p. 21). The course of this process is determined by 2 factors: the psychological and physical impact of a certain people on the geographic environment and the reverse impact of the environment on the formation of the people: “Each nationality exerts mental and physical pressure on the surrounding ethnic and geographical environment. The creation by the people of the state and the assimilation of territory by them depends on the strength of this pressure and on the strength of the resistance that this pressure meets. The Russian people took their place in history due to the fact that the historical pressure exerted on them was able to master this place” (Ibid., p. 22). Because the Russian the place of development consists of Ch. arr. from the steppe and forest natural zones, the interaction between them determined the special course of Rus. stories.
One of the most important elements of the Eurasian historical concept there was also the idea of "rhythms of history" or "periodic rhythm of the state-forming process." According to Vernadsky, the process of formation of states in the Eurasian territories is determined by successively successive stages of unification and disintegration: large state. formations (the Scythian state, the Hunnic Empire, the Mongol Empire, the Russian Empire and the USSR) break up into small states, which then reunite.
Along with cyclicality, Eurasians paid special attention to the continuity of typologically common cross-cutting structural components in the history of Eurasia - "exceptionally strong statehood", "strong and tough government power", " military empire”, which has a fairly flexible social organization, authoritarianism, based on the soil and therefore not detached from its people. In cases where k.-l. of the listed principles was violated, the unified Eurasian statehood was threatened with disintegration (specific strife, Time of Troubles, the eve of the revolution, etc.). From the inside, in order to maintain such unity, the Eurasians considered it necessary for the people to have a single, integral and organic worldview, which would represent the people's awareness of their place of development as a historical and organic integrity.
Considering the process of formation of Russian. statehood, Eurasians emphasized 2 the most important factors , which determined the course of Russian. history: borrowing from Byzantium orthodox. culture and the formation of state. structure, due to mong. yoke. The latter invariably received a positive assessment in the works of the Eurasianists: according to Savitsky, “without the “Tatars” there would be no Russia” (Savitsky. 1922, p. 342). According to the Eurasianists, the Tatars turned out to be a “neutral” cultural environment: they did not muddy the “purity of Russian national creativity”, but played a major positive role, since “they gave Russia the ability to organize itself militarily, create a state-coercive center, and achieve stability” (Ibid. pp. 343-344). In this regard, Vernadsky pointed to the example of St. blgv. book. Alexander Nevsky, to-ry, on the one hand, offered fierce resistance to the Germans. and Swede. knights who carried with them app. (Catholic) culture, and on the other hand, he called for a search for compromises in relations with the Mongol-Tatars. conquerors, religious the policy of which was distinguished by tolerance and indifference to local religions. views: “With a deep and ingenious hereditary historical instinct, Alexander realized that in his historical era the main danger to Orthodoxy and the originality of Russian culture threatens from the West, and not from the East, from Latinism, and not from Mongolianism. Mongolianism brought slavery to the body, but not to the soul. Latinism threatened to distort the very soul ”(see: Vernadsky G.V. Two feats of St. Alexander Nevsky // Evraziyskiy vremennik. 1925. Book 4. P. 318-337). Vernadsky believed that manifested in such a policy of state. the thinking of Alexander Nevsky was aimed at strengthening the cultural rootedness of the Russian. people in Orthodoxy, while taking from the Tatars what they could give in the state. construction: “Alexander saw in the Mongols a culturally friendly force that could help him preserve and assert Russian cultural identity from the Latin West” (Ibid.). According to N. Trubetskoy, under the guise of assimilation of the Byzantines. state ideas actually assimilated mong. the idea of statehood, so essentially no overthrow of the mong. there was no yoke, but there was “not the separation of Russia from the power of the Horde, but the spread of the power of the khan by the Moscow tsar with the transfer of the khan’s headquarters to Moscow” (Trubetskoy N. S. Legacy of Genghis Khan: A look at Russian history not from the West, but from the East / / He, 2007, p. 315). Thus, according to the common opinion of the Eurasians, the Muscovy took the place of the Mongols and took over their cultural and political heritage. It is the creative perception of the experience of the state. construction of the Mongols, placed on the soil of Rus. Orthodoxy, made it possible to create a stable and culturally monolithic Moscow kingdom, where, due to the commonality of religions. began, there were no cultural and ideological differences between the "tops" and "bottoms".
The division of the "tops" and "bottoms" was associated by the Eurasians with another turning point in Rus. history - the era of Peter's reforms, to-Crym E. gave a sharply negative assessment. Orientation imp. Peter I on the rapid reorganization of Russia in Europe. samples led to the collapse of the national-ideological unity of Rus. people: The Church gradually turned from a living organism into one of the organs of the state. apparatus, between the "tops" and "bottoms" a cultural one was formed, and after that. and religious abyss (caused by the departure of the upper part of society from Orthodox religious values), Rus. imperial policy became anti-national and non-Christian, Russia was drawn into Europe alien to its interests. policy, the consequence of which was, in particular, which led to the final collapse of the state. systems first World War. According to the Eurasianists, the wrong course foreign policy(focus on integration into Europe) and the pernicious stratification of society within Russia naturally led to a deep crisis in the entire socio-political life of the country, which could only be resolved by revolutionary means.
Socio-political concepts of E.
were in close connection with their historical views and represented a certain projection of these views on the modern. them a situation. Assessing the accomplished Russian. revolution, the Eurasians recognized its regularity and inevitability: the revolution was an attempt by the people to discard the alien culture imposed on them as a result of the course proclaimed by Peter the Great towards the Europeanization of Russia. Hasty Europeanization split the unity of the "tops" and "bottoms" of society, which was based on the religious-national tradition and necessary for the harmonious existence and development of any state - the people remained faithful to traditions. religious culture, while the upper classes were increasingly moving away from the people and their culture, striving to become real "Europeans". According to Suvchinsky, such processes led to the division of the educated and ruling strata of society into 2 classes, which were equally influenced by the west. ideas: bureaucracy and intelligentsia. Bureaucracy ( ruling circles) tried to implement the app. the idea of an ideal state machines, the intelligentsia sought to carry out the app. ideals of liberalism and socialism; according to N. Trubetskoy, “for some, Russia was the most precious thing as a great European power... for others, the “progressive” ideas of European civilization were the most precious thing” (Trubetskoy N.S. We and Others // He. 2007. P. 481 -482). However, artificiality and inorganic for Russian. cultures of both ideas led to an increase in the cultural gap in society, an increase social tension and ultimately to revolution. Thus, both the intelligentsia and the "ruling strata" were guilty of the revolution.
Trying to understand the significance of the revolution that had taken place, supporters of E. found in it both positive and negative aspects. According to the Eurasians, revolutionary upheavals revealed deep elemental forces of Rus. people and the path of the original development of Russia was outlined, as important components of which the Eurasians considered certain phenomena of Soviet reality: isolation from the West, active interaction with the Asian. peoples, the strengthening of the sense of the world vocation of Russia, the death of individualism and the triumph of collectivist ideals, the coming to power of "people from the people." Representatives of E. saw the main negative feature of the Bolshevik regime in its complete trampling of religion. ideals, in the conscious destruction of the entire layer of religions. the culture of the people. The cruel forms of Soviet political despotism, the lack of tolerance for dissidents, and the moral and physical destruction of those who disagree were also negatively assessed in Yekaterinburg.
E.'s supporters invariably rejected the reproaches made by their opponents that they "justify" or "accept" the revolution, pointing out that they "not only "accept", but take into account the revolution, "and at the same time they are trying to find it historical roots, because, according to Florovsky, “reducing the entire revolution to the evil intentions of party communists means, firstly, refusing to explain it ... and secondly, relieving oneself of the need for a creative and spiritual struggle against it” (Florovsky. 1926. S. 132). According to the Eurasianists, the power of the Bolsheviks, being a difficult test for the people, nevertheless brought certain benefits: “The Bolsheviks are largely working for their opponents ... because many of their activities ... lead to results that are directly opposite to their intention” (There same, p. 133). A case in point This Florovsky considered the persecution of the Orthodox. The Church: conceived for its destruction, they actually served to “enlighten the Russian soul in the crucible of martyrdom and harden the Russian faith”, so that “in the USSR the Russian Church flourished like the rod of Aarons, hardly more than in St. Petersburg Russia” (Ibid.). Thus, in the Eurasianists' own words, they were ready to humble themselves "before the revolution as before an elemental force", to forgive "all the disasters of the revelry of its unstoppable forces", but invariably pointed out the need to curse "its consciously evil will, which boldly and blasphemously rebelled against God and the Church” ([Trubetskoy N. S. Preface to the collection] // Exodus to the East. 1997. P. 50).
Despite the recognition of certain positive aspects of Bolshevik rule, the Eurasianists believed that, on the whole, its lack of spirituality was detrimental to Russia, and therefore called for quite specific (both theoretical and practical) steps to change the internal Russian political situation: "Russia ... must be liberated, conquered and repulsed in spirit" (Florovsky, 1926, p. 133). In connection with this, many E.'s followers developed various programs for the alleged "post-Bolshevik" structure of social and political life.
The historian M. Shakhmatov, who joined E., was engaged in the development of Russian. ideas of statehood, came to the conclusion that the ideal of a political system in Russian. culture is the "state of truth", not Western Europe. "state of law", "rule of law". Russian personification. ideal state-va was pravoslav. tsar, the most important moment of the activity of which Shakhmatov considered not to ensure the material well-being of the people, but to take care of his spiritual salvation (Shakhmatov M. Feat of power: Experience in the history of state ideals of Russia // Eurasian Vremennik. 1923. Book 3. P. 56 ). Based on such an idealization, the Eurasians proposed a number of elements of a proper state. Russian devices. In accordance with the program of 1925, entitled "What needs to be done?", the new Rus. the state should be right. kingdom, and the king must be elected, and in the future he himself proposes a successor. In governing, the tsar must rely on a special class of "elected rulers" who implement the "demotic" nature of power (unlike democratic power, such power should not be elected by the people, but should be focused on caring for the people's welfare). Being the head of the “chosen rulers”, the tsar is called upon to take care of the prosperity of Orthodoxy as a state-forming idea and to monitor the observance of the demotic principle of government.
Karsavin played the most significant role in the development of the political concepts of E. and the politicization of the movement. Thus, the idea of N. Trubetskoy about the people as an individual received a political refraction in the concept of a “cathedral” or “symphonic” personality developed by Karsavin. Criticizing the concept of formal law because of its lack of creative moral power, Karsavin put the idea of catholicity in the first place, which implies a close internal (and not just external) unity of people united by a common worldview, a true national unity. Any manifestation of individuality and selfish self-expression of a person contradicts such an idea of catholicity and violates it, and therefore should be reduced as much as possible. Personality can be considered only in plurality, as part of an integral hierarchy of more complex symphonic personalities - social groups, peoples, cultures. Supreme form catholicity and its ideal is the Church as "a special and supreme symphonic personality".
The proper correlation between the “general” and “individual” in public life must be maintained by a special class of elected leaders, which the Eurasians called “ruling selection” or “ruling stratum” (later L. Gumilyov used the same term), he “ideologically and culturally "and" politically "leads the people (cf .: Suvchinsky P. P. On the liquidation and legacy of socialism // Eurasian Chronicle. P., 1927. Issue 7. P. 14). Alekseev introduced the term “public servants” to refer to the same class of state leaders, indicating that app. the system of political parties is not applicable to Eurasia and should be replaced by the idea of a special class of people “serving the interests of the people” (Alekseev N. N. On the way to future Russia: The Soviet system and its political possibilities. P., . pp. 70-75).
Extremely important in Eurasian social and political thought was the idea of “ideocracy” developed by Trubetskoy, Alekseev and Karsavin, which generalized the essence of the political theories of E. Alekseev proposed to understand social and state as “ideocracy”. system, which is based on the single and only state. idea. The Eurasianists considered the idea of Orthodoxy to be such an idea. statehood: according to them, the national idea of Russia should merge with the idea of Orthodoxy. Such an “idea-ruler” (i.e., the dominant ideology) is called upon to create a society worthy of this idea, i.e., a state of an ideocratic type, very similar in its characteristic features to the Middle Ages. theocracy. According to Alekseev, class orgs (which existed in the USSR) should be replaced by “state-ideological, extra-class and supra-class” orgs, political parties of the old parliamentary type should give way to new orgs of a corporate, professional or territorial nature.
The external similarity of the concept of "ideocracy" with similar European ones. concepts used by the ideologists of fascism, forced many others. Russian thinkers. emigration to warn of the danger of the degeneration of E. into the fascist ideology. Eurasians responded to such accusations by pointing out that ital. and germ. fascism, like Russian. communism, are a perverse form of ideocracy, since for this principle of social organization it is the determining one which idea rules society. However, the real results of the "ideocratic" state. experiments in Italy, Germany and the USSR pushed most of the Eurasian theorists, including N. Trubetskoy and Alekseev, away from the straightforward authoritarian constructions that they adhered to in the 1920s. N. Trubetskoy in his correspondence directly pointed out that he recognized the fallacy of the concept of "ideocracy", since its practical implementation leads to the strengthening of the next totalitarian regime, and as an alternative way he pointed out the need for an internal creative transformation of the society's culture on the basis of religions. values.
E. and Orthodoxy.
The religious and ideological constructions of the supporters of E. were distinguished by considerable conceptual diversity. However, undoubtedly common to all participants in the movement at various stages of its development was the recognition of Orthodoxy as the only religion. a force capable of becoming the basis of the original culture of Russia and, more broadly, of Eurasia.
Adoption of Orthodoxy by Russia in the 10th century. was considered by the Eurasians as "a decisive event in Russian history" (Vernadsky, 2000, p. 36). According to Vernadsky, “from then until the 18th century, at least, and to a large extent to the present day, the Orthodox Church remains the main steward of the spiritual life of the Russian people” (Ibid.). However, since the 18th century religious the consciousness of the people cracks under the pressure of the West: "Protestantism and Protestant sects, the activities of the Jesuits ... and later the direct propaganda of atheism." High voltage crisis spiritual-religious. life reaches Russia in the 20th century, and this crisis “may end either in death or rebirth” (Ibid., p. 37). According to E.’s supporters, however, which Russia “reveals with its revolution”, is “the rejection of socialism and the affirmation of the Church” ([Trubetskoy N. S. Preface to the collection] // Exodus to the East. 1997. P. 50 ). The Eurasianists believed that, despite the outward deplorable state of the Russian Church, it is internally reborn: “We see that the Church comes to life in a new power of grace, regains the prophetic language of wisdom and inspiration. The “epoch of science” is again being replaced by the “epoch of faith” - not in the sense of the destruction of science, but in the sense of recognizing the impotence and blasphemy of attempts to solve the basic, final problems of existence by scientific means” (Ibid., p. 51). According to N. Trubetskoy, it is Orthodoxy that is called upon to play a decisive role in the revival and formation of the national Russian. (Eurasian) culture: “Orthodoxy, in accordance with the properties of our national psyche, should take a leading position in our culture, influencing many aspects of Russian life” (Trubetskoy N. S. The tops and bottoms of Russian culture // He. 2007. P. 196) . However, religion Trubetskoy’s idea turns out to be only a part of a broader cultural idea: according to him, “it is necessary that Russian culture not be limited to Eastern Orthodoxy” (Ibid., p. 197). Orthodoxy should become the basis of culture, but in addition to it, spiritual elements of the “non-believing Turanian East” should also be included in the culture, it is thanks to which the “heterogeneous” tribes historically rallied “into one cultural whole” (Ibid.). Thus, E., apparently, assumed a certain cultural synthesis, towering over the obvious religions. differences between Orthodoxy and other religions, and therefore was rightly subjected to reproaches for raising ideology above religion proper.
Focusing on a common line of demarcation with the culture of the West, in the field of religions. concepts, the Eurasians also proceeded from the rigid opposition of Orthodoxy (East) and Catholicism (West). According to the Eurasianists, Catholicism is the spiritual basis of Romance culture, the central religion. the idea of a swarm is the idea of “crime” and “God the Judge”: “In the East they believed more strongly in Christ the Savior, Christ the Redeemer; in the West, Christ appeared to the imagination primarily as a formidable Judge. Here they were more afraid of the afterlife retribution than they believed in the forgiveness of sins ”(Bicilli P.M. Catholicism and the Roman Church // Russia and Latinism. 1923. P. 65). The Eurasians saw the main shortcoming of Catholicism in its secularization, in the desire to achieve the greatest possible earthly power, as well as in the rationalistic understanding of spiritual phenomena, which caused the crisis of the whole of Europe. worldview. Unlike Catholicism, Orthodoxy seeks to elevate a person from earth to heaven, and therefore, according to Suvchinsky, “Orthodoxy is affirmed vertically - deep and high, Catholicism - in a horizontal plane, which they are trying to subjugate to themselves without limit” (Suvchinsky P.P. Passion and danger // Ibid., pp. 28-29). Giving overall rating app. Christianity, Savitsky maximalistly recognized it as a complete distortion of the truth: “Those who convert to Latinism ... go from the full Truth to the perversion of the truth, from the Church of Christ to the community that betrayed the beginnings of the Church as a sacrifice to human pride” (Savitsky P.N. Russia and Latinism // Ibid., p. 11).
G. Florovsky directly linked the rationalism of the Catholic. Churches with Jewish legalism: "... the religious element of Judaism reveals its affinity with the equally legalistic spirit of Roman Catholicism, which transformed the gospel gospel into a theological system" (Florovskiy, Cunning of Reason, 2002, p. 57). Spiritual liberation from the shackles of rationalism, according to Florovsky, is possible only on the paths of a consistent demarcation from the "European tradition". In this regard, Florovsky pointed to the deeply national character of Russian. Orthodoxy, on the mutual influence of Orthodoxy. spiritual values and creative spirit Rus. people, the results of which were the unprecedented spiritual flowering of Muscovite Rus', as well as the emergence of special centers of Orthodoxy. spiritual and prayerful creativity (different from the centers of secular and “everyday” culture), thanks to which it was really possible to speak of “Holy Rus'”: “Through centuries and spaces, the unity of the creative element is unmistakably felt. And the points of its condensation almost never coincide with the centers of everyday life. Not in St. Petersburg, not in ancient capital Kiev, not in Novgorod, not even in "mother" Moscow, but in secluded Russian monasteries, at St. and the Orthodox spirit” (Florovsky G.V. On non-historical peoples: Country of fathers and country of children // Exodus to the East. 1997. P. 168).
Similar views on the fundamental difference between the East. and app. Christianity was also developed by N. Trubetskoy, who argued that Christianity, being planted in a variety of cultural environments, gave different results. Romano-germ. civilization brought to life the idea of “the brotherhood of all peoples”, which can be realized only at the high cost of losing their cultural identity. On the contrary, Russian Orthodoxy has always been tolerant of other cultures and beyond. this has a greater ability to spread, to mission among non-Christs. peoples. Taking into itself folk culture, it, as it were, from within makes it truly Christian, without depriving it of originality and originality.
Despite such theoretical constructions, one of the most serious stumbling blocks for Eurasian theories turned out to be precisely the problem of Christ. mission and Christianization of the peoples of the Eurasian East. If in the 1922 article “Religions of India and Christianity” Trubetskoy argued that “from the Christian point of view, the entire history of the religious development of India passes under the sign of the continuous dominion of Satan” (Trubetskoy N. S. 2007. P. 400-401), then later under the influence of ideological and tactical considerations (the need to substantiate the unity of polyconfessional Eurasia), the attitude of Eurasians to various religions of the East became more benevolent. In the Eurasian manifesto of 1926, paganism, Buddhism and Islam of the nomadic peoples of Eurasia were already interpreted as “potential Orthodoxy”: “Paganism is potential Orthodoxy ... if we focus on paganism, ethnographically and geographically close to Russia and part of it, we can easily find a particularly close relationship of the primary religious order with Russian Orthodoxy ”(Eurasianism: An Experience of Systematic Presentation // Ways of Eurasia: Russian Intelligentsia and the Fate of Russia: [Sb. St.]. M., 1992 pp. 363-365). In the Buddhist doctrine of bodhisattvas, the Eurasians were ready to see "a premonition of the idea of God-manhood", and in religion. ideal of Islam - a correct understanding of the need for transforming human activity in the world (Ibid.). The Eurasians argued that the religious and cultural world of the East gravitates towards the Russian. Orthodoxy as to its center. At the same time, they tried to take into account the indication put forward by their opponents of the relatively small success of the preceding Christ. missions among the peoples of the East, against the undeniable "opposition to the truth" among the pagans, and declared that conversion "from outside" and "forcibly" was contrary to the very spirit of Orthodoxy. Therefore, the historical mission of Russian Orthodoxy, according to the Eurasianists, should be to ensure the self-disclosure of Orthodoxy. essence of heterodox confessions of the Eurasian peoples, in helping them in their natural self-development to Orthodoxy, and not in external missionary activity. The concept of "potential Orthodoxy" received a sharply negative assessment of the Orthodox. thinkers: Florovsky called it “a seductive and deceitful theory”, “a pink fairy tale about paganism” (Florovsky G.V. Eurasian temptation // Trubetskoy. 2007. P. 67). With all the desire to connect the state. and the cultural ideal of E. with the Orthodox. By faith, the Eurasianists failed to find a convincing solution to the questions of how desirable and possible the conversion of all the peoples of Eurasia to Orthodoxy and how Orthodox unity can be combined with the difference in cultures of the Eurasian peoples, caused, in particular, by the difference in their religions. views.
Critical evaluation E.
Eurasian ideas and concepts from the time of their appearance have been subjected to incessant criticism in the Russian environment. emigration. On the one hand, the practical recognition by the Eurasians of Bolshevism as a fait accompli Rus. history, and with others - the commitment of the participants in the movement to the ideals of the Orthodox. statehood and their obvious "anti-Western" led to the fact that the Eurasian movement was, as it were, in the middle of the political spectrum and after. this received polemical blows from all sides.
Struve P.B. Past, present, future // RM. 1922. Book. 1/2. S. 229). The well-known politician V. V. Shulgin pointed out that Peter’s turn to the West was not (as the Eurasianists claimed) just a whim, but was demanded by history itself, becoming Russia’s response to the military threat from the West. Prot. Sergius Bulgakov saw in E. a return to populism, which he despised, and a pragmatic approach to religion, aptly named by him "Orthodoslavism."
Some provisions of E. were subjected to serious criticism by N. A. Berdyaev. In a letter dated 21 Apr. 1924 Suvchinsky Berdyaev pointed out that E. has certain sectarian features, since it refuses the “universal idea” for the sake of “recreating the Orthodox Russian way of life”, i.e. isolation in national culture (see: Kolerov M. A. Brotherhood of the Holy Sofia: "Vehovites" and "Eurasians" (1921-1925) // VF 1994. No. 10. P. 155-156). In response, Suvchinsky wrote that the concept of "sectarianism" can no less be applied to the Russian. intelligentsia, as a representative of a swarm acts Berdyaev. She separated from Orthodoxy, and thus from the "Russian folk-national element", and therefore is forced to "wander in various searches", unjustifiably claiming to be universal. Suvchinsky also noted that Berdyaev himself understands Christianity in isolation from the historical fate of Orthodoxy as “an inter-confessional, general Christian abstraction and scheme”, criticism of E. is conducted by Berdyaev from a cosmopolitan position and therefore cannot be perceived as the voice of a truly Christ. religious consciousness. Suvchinsky also found unacceptable Berdyaev’s admiration for the fact that the revolution allegedly crushes the “inertness of Orthodox life” and therefore should be assessed positively, equating Berdyaev’s reasoning with the blasphemy of the theomachists (see: Ibid., pp. 157-158). The controversy with the ideas of E. was continued by Berdyaev in the 1925 article "Eurasians", where he dwells on both positive and negative features of the Eurasian movement. As positive features, E. Berdyaev mentions the rejection of vulgar restoration, an understanding of Russian. the question as a cultural and spiritual one, the feeling of the loss of cultural monopoly by Europe and the hope for the return of the peoples of Asia to the world flow of history. He also highlights the “malicious and poisonous” sides of E., the root of which he sees in the fact that “Eurasians want to remain nationalists, withdrawing from Europe and hostile to Europe” (Berdyaev N.A. Eurasians // Trubetskoy. 2007. P. 8) . The Eurasian idea, which seems to him too “Asiatic”, since the supporters of E. “are more proud of their connection with Genghis Khan than their connection with Plato and the Greek teachers of the Church” (Ibid., p. 11), Berdyaev opposes the idea of the need to create in the world of "a single spiritual cosmos, to which the Russian people must make their contribution" (Ibid., pp. 8-9). In E.'s nominalistic approach to the idea of unity, Berdyaev saw the danger of abandoning Christianity in favor of pagan particularism (Ibid. S. 10). Later, Berdyaev called it naturalistic monism, in which the state is understood as a function and organ of the Church and acquires a comprehensive meaning, organizing all aspects of human life. The design of such a "perfect" state. a device that leaves no room for freedom and creativity of the human spirit, Berdyaev described as "the etatic utopianism of the Eurasians." He noticed that the emotional orientation of Yekaterinburg, which is the reaction of “creative national and religious instincts to the catastrophe,” could turn into “Russian fascism” (Ibid., p. 5).
P. Bitsilli, who participated in one of the Eurasian collections, defined his ambivalent attitude towards the Eurasians in the title of the critical article. "Two Faces of Eurasianism". He considered the upholding of the unity of the Rus to be a clear face. nations and statehood, which cannot be artificially divided for the sake of "self-determination of peoples", and the related proclamation of the principle of federalism. Dr. face - "seductive, but also disgusting" - Bitsilli saw in the desire of E. to become the only party, which must inevitably lead to dictatorship. References to the fact that this will be prevented by the Eurasian Orthodox Church. ideology seemed unconvincing to him. On the contrary, such a state of affairs could only lead to the preservation of the subordination of the Church to the state. Bitsilli also believed that the desire of the Eurasians to become the only ruling, moreover, Orthodox, party in a country inhabited by peoples of different religions, leads to the dominance of one people (the bearer of the leading religion) over others (Bitsilli P.M. Two faces of Eurasianism // Russia between Europe and Asia, 1993, pp. 279-291).
The most profound critical analysis of the foundations of E. was carried out by Florovsky. He formulated his understanding of the meaning of E., noting that it contains “the truth of questions, not the truth of answers, the truth of problems, not solutions” (Florovsky G.V. Eurasian temptation // Trubetskoy. 2007. P. 36). Starting from the recognition of the fact of the revolution and the need for its spiritual overcoming, the Eurasians came to its justification. Florovsky saw the main reason for this in the worship of the Eurasianists before the social element and, as a result, in their readiness to submit to historical necessity, in their conviction "in the infallibility of history" (Ibid., p. 40). With such a vision historical process a certain reverence for the very idea of power was united in the Eurasian consciousness. Considering the justification by the Eurasians of the identity of Rus. culture, Florovsky emphasized their characteristic morphological approach to the problem, which led them to recognize the subordination of the history of peoples to the fatal process of development. The desire to save the social achievements of the revolution led the Eurasianists to the idea of creating a new direction, a party. “The exhausted pathos of creativity,” wrote Florovsky, “is being replaced by the pathos of distribution and “leadership,” the maximalism of power, not only daring, but also daring. And in Eurasianism, despite all the declarations about being “non-partisan,” the spirit of misanthropic intolerance, the spirit of lust for power and enslavement is accumulating and warming up” (Ibid., p. 52). With this approach, in the “phenomenology” of E. there was no place for the true doctrine of the Church, in which the sources of spiritual creativity and freedom lie: “... for the Eurasians, the Church is in the state, and not the state in the Church” (Ibid. C 72), “Eurasians are too burdening the Church with the world and worldly things” (Ibid., p. 73). In the doctrine of the Eurasianists about the “symphonic personality”, Florovsky saw “a dream of some kind of socialization of man” (Ibid., p. 53). He found unreasonable an attempt to divide Russia and Europe, since they are within a single cultural and historical cycle. Florovsky refused to agree with E.'s sharply negative attitude towards the app. Christianity, pointing out that “the name of Christ unites Russia and Europe, no matter how distorted or even desecrated in the West” (Ibid., p. 65). According to Florovsky, for the spiritual revival of Russia, it is not political or cultural activity that is called for by adherents of E., but a spiritual feat: “Only in vigil and asceticism, only in prayerful silence does true strength accumulate and gather ... Only in this feat the resurrection and resurrection of Russia will take place” (Ibid., p. 38).
Source: Exodus to the East: Premonitions and Accomplishments. Sofia, 1921. M., 1997p; Florovsky G. V. Cunning of the mind // Exodus to the East. 1921. S. 28-39; The same // He. Faith and culture. SPb., 2002. S. 49-60; he is. About non-historical peoples // Exodus to the East. 1921. S. 52-70; he is. On Righteous and Sinful Patriotism // On the Way. M.; Berlin, 1922, pp. 230-293; he is. Petrified insensibility: Concerning the controversy against the Eurasians // Way. 1926. No. 2. S. 128-133; he is. Eurasian temptation // SZ. 1928. No. 34. S. 312-346; he is. From the past of Russian thought. M., 1998; Savitsky P.N. Steppe and settled way of life // On the ways. pp. 341-356; he is. Russia is a special geographical world. Prague, 1927; he is. The place of development of Russian industry. Berlin, 1932; he is. For a creative understanding of the nature of the Russian world. Prague, ; he is. Eurasia continent. M., 1997; Russia and Latinism: Sat. Art. Berlin, 1923; Vernadsky G.V. Inscription of Russian history. Prague, 1927. St. Petersburg, 2000p; he is. Experience of the history of Eurasia. Berlin, 1934; Yakobson R. O. About phonological language unions // Eurasia in the light of linguistics. Prague, 1931, pp. 7-12; he is. On the characteristics of the Eurasian linguistic union. [P.], 1931; Russia between Europe and Asia: Eurasian temptation: An anthology / Editorial staff: L. I. Novikova, I. N. Sizemskaya. M., 1993; Karsavin L.P. Op. M., 1993; Trubetskoy N.S. Europe and humanity. Sofia, 1920; he is. To the problem of self-knowledge of personality: Collected works. Art. Berlin, 1924; he is. Story. Culture. Language. M., 1995; he is. Letters and notes / Entry. Art.: V. Toporov. M., 2004; he is. Legacy of Genghis Khan: [Sat. Art.] M., 2007; Russian Knot of Eurasianism: East in Russian. thoughts: Sat. tr. Eurasians / Comp., entry. Art. and note: S. Yu. Klyuchnikov. M., 1997.
Lit.: Böss O. Die Lehre der Eurasier: Ein Beitr. z. russischen Ideengeschichte d. 20 Jh. Wiesbaden, 1961; aka [Boss O.] Teaching of the Eurasians / Per. from German: N. A. Nikonova and A. A. Troyanov // Beginnings. 1992. No. 4. C. 89-98; Riasanovsky N.V. The Emergence of Eurasianism // CalifSS. 1967 Vol. 4. P. 39-72; aka [Ryazanovsky N.V.] The emergence of Eurasianism / Per. from English: I. Vinkovetsky // Star. 1995. No. 2. S. 29-44; Sobolev A.V. Prince N. S. Trubetskoy and Eurasianism // Lit. studies. 1991. No. 6. S. 121-130; he is. On Eurasianism as a culture-centric worldview // Russia XXI. M., 2000. No. 1. S. 70-91; Eurasia: East. Russian views. emigrants / Ed.: L. V. Ponomareva. M., 1992; Lux L. Eurasianism / Per. from German: N. Burikhin // VF. 1993. No. 6. S. 105-114; Ignatov A. "Eurasianism" and the search for a new Russian cultural identity / Per. from German: V.K. Kantor // VF. 1995. No. 6. S. 49-64; Polovinkin S. M. Eurasianism // Russian Philosophy: Small Encyclopedia. dictionary. M., 1995. S. 172-178; Chinyaeva E. V. Russian intellectuals in Prague: The theory of Eurasianism // Russian emigration in Europe: 20s - 30s. 20th century / Ed.: L. V. Ponomareva et al. M., 1996. S. 177-198; eadem. Russian Intellectuals in Prague: Development of Eurasianism // Eadem. Russians Outside Russia: The Émigré Community in Czechoslovakia 1918-1938. Münch., 2001, pp. 185-212, 250-258; Petr Suvchinsky and his time / Ed.-Comp.: A. Bretanitskaya. M., 1999; About Eurasia and the Eurasians: Bibliogr. decree. Petrozavodsk, 2000; Paradovsky R . Methodological and metaphysical problems of Eurasian cultural studies / Transl.: A. V. Boldov // Slavic studies. 2001. No. 5. S. 28-38; Ovchinnikov A.I., Ovchinnikova S.P.. Eurasian legal thinking N. N. Alekseeva. R.-n/D., 2002; Eurasia: People and Myths: Sat. Art. / Comp. and resp. Ed.: A. S. Panarin. M., 2003; Pashchenko V. Ya. Social philosophy of Eurasianism. M., 2003; Laruelle M . Ideology of Russian Eurasianism, or Thoughts on the Greatness of the Empire / Per. from French: T. N. Grigorieva. M., 2004; Vishnevetsky I. G."Eurasian Evasion" in the Music of the 1920s - 1930s M., 2005; Makarov V.G. "Pax rossica": The history of the Eurasian movement and the fate of the Eurasians // VF. 2006. No. 9. S. 102-117; Makarov V. G., matveeva A. M. Geosophy of P. N. Savitsky: between ideology and science // VF. 2007. No. 2. S. 123-135.
D. V. Smirnov
Classical Eurasianism (review)
EURASIANITY the ideological and socio-political current of the first wave of Russian emigration, united by the concept of Russian culture as a non-European phenomenon, which, among the cultures of the world, has a unique combination of Western and Eastern features, and therefore simultaneously belongs to the West and East, at the same time not related to either one or the other.
Despite their clearly expressed interest in the "ultimate", metaphysical problems of Russian and world culture and history, the representatives of this trend were not abstract thinkers and gravitated not so much to philosophy (culture and history), but to various areas of specific humanitarian knowledge. So, the founders of Eurasianism book. N. S. Trubetskoy(1890 1938) philologist and linguist, founder (together with P. O. Jacobson) Prague Linguistic Circle; P. N. Savitsky(1895 1965) geographer, economist; P. P. Suvchinsky(1892 1985) musicologist, literary and musical critic; G. V. Florovsky(1893 1979) cultural historian, theologian and patrologist, G. V. Vernadsky(1877 1973) historian and geopolitician; N.N. Alekseev jurist and political scientist, historian of societies, thoughts; V. N. Ilyin cultural historian, literary critic and theologian; originally belonged to Eurasianism and Bicilli cultural historian, philologist, literary critic, book. D. Svyatopolk-Mirsky publicist, Erenzhen Khara-Davan Historian. Each of the representatives of "classical" Eurasianism named here (1921-29), starting from his specific cultural and historical material and experience (cultural and historical, geographical, political and legal, philological, ethnographic, art criticism, etc.), referring to Analyzing and summarizing him, he turned to the problems of the philosophy of culture and at the same time historiosophy associated with the dialectics of East and West in Russian and world history and culture.
The term "Eurasia" was introduced Humboldt m, the scientist designated them the entire territory of the Old World: Europe and Asia. Introduced into the Russian language by a geographer IN AND. Lamansky (1833-1914).
The Eurasianists urged to fight against the "nightmare of universal Europeanization", demanded "throw off the European yoke". "We must get used to the idea that the Romano-Germanic world with its own culture is our worst enemy." So, clearly and unambiguously, N. Trubetskoy wrote in the program book "Europe and Mankind" published in Sofia in 1920.
In the mid 20s. one of the leaders of the Eurasianists, Pyotr Savitsky, is attempting to create a Eurasian ideological platform on the basis of political organization, focused on underground work in Soviet Russia.
Savitsky is drawn into the organized GPU "Operation Trust". (Chekists created the appearance of the existence in the USSR of a branched anti-Bolshevik conspiratorial organization based on Eurasian principles.) Savitsky visits Russia several times incognito. The collapse of the "Trust" deals a serious blow to the idea of the political organization of Eurasianism for a long time.
In 1926, the newspaper "Eurasia" began to appear in Paris, in which the frank pro-Bolshevik orientation of the movement became more and more clear. On the other hand, the Prague Circle, which unites the founding fathers (in particular, Savitsky himself, Alekseev), is increasingly leaning towards conservative positions.
The main value of Eurasianism consisted in ideas that were both original and at the same time internally related to the deep traditions of Russian history and statehood. Eurasianism considered Russian culture not just as a part of European culture, but as a completely independent civilization that absorbed the experience of not only the West, but equally the East. The Russian people, from this point of view, cannot be attributed to either Europeans or Asians, it belongs to a completely original Eurasian ethnic community.
Such originality of Russian culture and statehood (the simultaneous presence of European and Asian elements) also determines the special historical path of Russia, its national-state program, which does not coincide with the Western European tradition. Moreover, the Asian origins for Russia are internally closer than the Western ones. The eastern orientation of Russia was primarily associated by the Eurasianists with the geopolitical sphere, without extending it to the religious area, where they, as P.N. Savitsky, remained deeply "Orthodox people" for whom " Orthodox Church there is a lamp that shines for them."
Eurasianism is splitting, and by the mid-1930s it is dying out. The left-wing Eurasians actually become obedient instruments of Moscow, abandoning the initial originality of the movement, while the right-wingers focus their attention on highly specialized areas history, geopolitics, economics, etc.
The main provisions of classical Eurasianism
Civilization approach
West (Europe) against Humanity.
Romano-Germanic civilization developed special system principles and values, which she identified with the universal system. This Romano-Germanic system began to be imposed on other peoples and cultures by force and cunning. Spiritual and material colonization by the West of the rest of humanity is a negative phenomenon. Every nation and every culture has an internal right to develop according to its own logic. Russia original civilization. It is called upon not only to resist the West, defending its own path, but also to become at the forefront of other peoples and countries of the Earth in defending their civilizational freedoms.
Criticism of the Romano-Germanic civilization
The Romano-Germanic civilization based on the secularization of Western Christianity (Catholicism, Protestantism) built a special post-Christian system that puts in the first place individualism, selfishness, competition, materialism, technological progress, consumer values, economic exploitation of the weak by the strong. This civilization equated to "backward" cultures not only the cultures of the East and the Third World, but also the non-Western directions of the Christian world, in particular, Orthodoxy. The Romano-Germanic civilization bases its right to globality not on spiritual greatness, but on grossly material strength, although it evaluates the spirituality of other peoples only on the basis of its ideas about the superiority of “reason” (“rationalism”). Starting from the Enlightenment, the Romano-Germanic civilization generally embarked on the path of open resistance to theomachism, replacing the tradition and worship of the Deity with the exaltation of human pride. This civilization is deeply ill, is in an internal crisis, its material prosperity hides spiritual degeneration and decline. The spread of its influence to other parts of the world is tantamount to a wave of spiritual epidemic. The Romano-Germanic civilization in its colonial-imperialist expression (and it knows no other historically) is a “threat to mankind” and contradicts all other models of civilizations, as it denies them the right to exist.
Spatial factor
Theory of place development
Geographical space has a huge (sometimes decisive) influence on the culture and national history of peoples. Each people, developing in a certain geographical environment, develops its own national, ethical, legal, linguistic, ritual, economic and political forms. The “place” where the “development” of a people or a state takes place largely determines the trajectory and meaning of this “development” to the point that they become inseparable. It is impossible to separate history from spatial conditions, and the analysis of civilization must take place not only along the temporal axis (“earlier”, “later”, “developed” nations, “undeveloped” nations, etc.), but also along the spatial (“East” , "west", "deserts", "mountains", etc.). There is no universal development model, the diversity of the Earth's landscapes gives rise to a variety of cultures, each of which has its own cycles, its own internal criteria, its own logic. No place of development has the right to claim to be a standard for the rest. Each nation has its own model of development, its own “time”, its own “rationality” and must be understood and evaluated based on internal original criteria.
Geographic determinism
The climate of Europe, the diminutiveness of its spaces, the influences of its landscapes gave rise to a specific European civilization, in which the influence of the forest prevails ( Northern Europe) and coasts (Mediterranean). Other landscapes gave birth to other types of civilizations: steppe massifs nomadic empires (from the Scythians to the Turks), desert Arabian (Islamic) civilization, loess soils Chinese, island highlands Japanese, merger of forest and steppe Russian-Eurasian. The imprint of the landscape lies in the history of each of these civilizations and cannot be overcome or outlived.
State and nation
Neo-Slavophilism
The first Russian Slavophiles of the 19th century (Khomyakov, Aksakov, Kireevsky) insisted that the Russian (Slavic, Orthodox) civilization was unique and distinctive. It needs to be protected, preserved and strengthened in the face of the West on the one hand, and liberal modernism (also coming from the West) on the other. The Slavophils asserted the value of traditions, the grandeur of antiquity, love for Russian antiquity, and pointed to the "dark sides" of progress, the dead end of materialism and nihilism, and the alienness of many aspects of the Western model to Russia. Late Slavophiles (Danilevsky, Leontiev, V.I. Lamansky introduced the concept of "Eurasia") believed that Russia should not only defend its originality, but also close itself in the face of the West, the overall balance of influence of which on Russia was regarded as generally completely negative ( unlike the first Slavophiles, who were more cautious in these assessments). The Eurasianists inherited the position of the late Slavophiles from this philosophical school, further developed their thesis in the sense of a positive assessment of the influences of the East. Among the Eurasians (Savitsky), Russian identity not only “needs protection and isolation”, but must be actively opposed to the Romano-Germanic civilization and become a stronghold for the liberation movement of all mankind. Russia's mission is being universalized.
Turan factor
Russia has developed as an independent civilization by combining the actual Slavic beginning with the Turanian. The legacy of the Mongol-Tatar period was that most important element of Russian history, which turned several peripheral fragmented East Slavic principalities into the backbone of a world empire. Those sectors Kievan Rus, which fell under European influence in the XIII century, gradually dissolved in it, having lost their political and cultural independence. Those lands that became part of the Horde later became the core of the continental empire. The Tatars preserved the spiritual identity of Ancient Rus', which was resurrected in the Muscovite Kingdom and entered the “legacy of Genghis Khan” (the title of the book of Prince N.S. Trubetskoy). The Eurasians were the first among Russian philosophers and historians to rethink the Turanian factor in a positive way, recognizing the living source of Eurasian statehood in the dialectic of Russian-Tatar relations.
Dialectic of national history
The national history of Russia is dialectical. In Kievan Rus we meet the first intuitions of the future messianism (Metr. Hilarion), but this is a typical Eastern European weak state, located on the northern periphery of Byzantium. The Mongol conquests do not destroy flourishing Rus', but establish control over the scattered East Slavic regions, which are in eternal strife. The myth of Kievan Rus matures in the Mongol era, as nostalgia for the "golden age" and has a "project", "mobilizing" character for a future sovereign revival. The Muscovite Kingdom represents the highest rise of Russian statehood. The national idea receives a new status: after Moscow's refusal to recognize the Union of Florence (imprisonment and exile of Metropolitan Isidore) and the imminent fall of Constantinople, Rus' takes over the baton of the Orthodox kingdom. Moscow becomes the Third (last) Rome. In parallel, there is a liberation from the power of the Horde. Moscow in the second half of the 15th century received both political independence and a newly formulated religious mission. 200 years of Muscovy flourishing of Holy Rus'. The schism of the 17th century marks the end of this period. The schism has not only ecclesiastical, but also geopolitical and social significance. Russia turns to Europe, the aristocracy is rapidly alienated from the masses. The pro-Western (semi-Catholic or semi-Protestant) nobility at one extreme, the archaic masses, gravitating toward the Old Believers or national forms of sectarianism, on the other. The Eurasianists called the Petersburg period the "Romano-Germanic yoke". What the Horde saved the Russians from happened through the Romanovs. The Romanov system, having stood for 200 years, collapsed, and the bottom element of the people poured onto the surface. Bolshevism was recognized by the Eurasians as an expression of "Moscow", "pre-split", actually "Eurasian" Rus', which took revenge on the "Romano-Germanic" St. Petersburg. Under the extravagant ideological façade of Marxism, the Eurasianists recognized the Russian Bolsheviks as a national and imperial idea. The Eurasianists saw the future of Russia in “overcoming Bolshevism” and in entering the main paths of Eurasian state-building, Orthodox and national, but essentially different from the St. Petersburg era, and even more so, from any form of copying European “liberal democracy”.
Political platform
Ideocracy
The state, society, people, each individual person must serve the highest spiritual goal. The material conditions of earthly existence cannot and should not be ends in themselves. Wealth and prosperity, a strong state system and an efficient economy, a powerful army and a developed industry should be the means to achieve higher ideals. The meaning of the state and the nation is given only by the existence of the “idea-ruler”. The political system, which presupposes the setting of the "idea-ruler" as the highest value, was called by the Eurasians "ideocracy" from the Greek "idea" "idea" and "kratos" "power". Russia has always been thought of as Holy Rus', as a power fulfilling a special historical mission. The Eurasian worldview should be the national idea the coming Russia, its "idea-ruler". The other aspects of politics, economics, social structure, industrial development, etc. must be subordinated to this idea-ruler.
Eurasian selection
Russia-Eurasia, as an expression of a forest-steppe empire on a continental scale, requires a special model of governance based on a special “selection”. This "Eurasian selection" is carried out on the basis of a special ethics, corresponding to landscape conditions. This is the ethics of collective responsibility, selflessness, mutual assistance, asceticism, will, endurance, unquestioning obedience to superiors. Only such qualities can ensure the preservation of control over the vast sparsely populated lands of the Eurasian forest-steppe zone. The ruling class of Eurasia was formed on the basis of collectivism, asceticism, military virtues, and a strict hierarchy. The formalization of these principles formed the basis of the code of laws of Genghis Khan "Yasa". Later, the main motives of the "Eurasian selection" were embodied in the political structure of Muscovite Rus'. With any ideological façades, the real mechanism of governing Russia-Eurasia naturally gravitates towards the logic of "Eurasian selection".
Western democracy took shape in the specific conditions of ancient Athens and, many centuries later, insular England. This democracy reflects the specific characteristics of the European "local development". This "democracy" is not a universal measure. Other "places of development" imply other forms of peoples' participation in political governance; they all differ in both formal and essential features. For Russia-Eurasia, copying the norms of European "liberal democracy" is pointless, impossible and harmful. The participation of the people of Russia in political governance should be called by a different term "demotia", from the Greek "demos" "people". This complicity does not reject the hierarchy, should not be formalized in the party-parliamentary structures. "Demotia" implies a system of zemstvo councils, county and national (in the case of small peoples) representations. "Demotia" is developing on the basis of communal self-government, the peasant "peace". An example of “demoticism” is the election of the rector of the Church by parishioners in Muscovite Rus'. If “democracy” is formally opposed to autocracy, then “Eurasian demotia” may well be combined with “Eurasian authoritarianism”.
IDEAS AND POLITICS IN HISTORY
EURASIAN IDEA: ORIGIN AND EVOLUTION
I.I. Orlik
Center for Political Research Institute of Economics RAS Novocheremushkinskaya, 46, Moscow, Russia, 117333
The article discusses the main stages of the emergence of "Eurasianism", examines the views of its founders, as well as the attitude of Eurasians to the national policy of the USSR. Particular attention is paid to the concepts of "neo-Eurasianism" - attempts to revive Eurasian ideas and supplement them with new original views.
Key words: Eurasianism, Russia, P.N. Savitsky, N.S. Trubetskoy, G.I. Vernadsky, neo-Eurasianism.
In a dramatic time for Russia - in the early 20s. last century - when there was a bloody long Civil War and fate Russian state was very uncertain, a small group of Russian intellectuals - university professors, writers, publicists who fled or forcibly expelled from their homeland, thought about the future of Russia and tried to substantiate the main principles of the country's development. This is how the Eurasian idea was born. They were not amateurs, not political doctrinaires, indulging in empty fantasies without any weighty arguments. No, these were "people who have passed scientific school who mastered the art of sophisticated analysis” (1).
The birth of an idea. The Eurasian idea was put forward by representatives of the Russian intellectual elite, but not in Russia, but abroad, in exile. Unlike those whose goal was the struggle to overthrow the Soviet regime (2), a small group of Russian intellectuals set themselves the task of not only comprehending the profound changes that had taken place in their country, but also trying to determine the possible future of Russia, its place and role in world development .
They settled in Prague, Sofia, Belgrade, Paris and Berlin. In the early 20s. 20th century economist-geographer Pyotr Nikolaevich Savitsky and philo-
Sof Nikolai Sergeevich Trubetskoy in Prague became the founders of an ideological movement that soon became known as "Eurasianism". The recognized ideologists of Eurasianism were N.S. Trubetskoy, P.N. Savitsky, N.N. Alekseev, G.V. Vernadsky, L.P. Karsavin, V.P. Nikitin, B.N. Shiryaev, V.N. Ivanov.
During the 20s. The Eurasian movement has spread to a number of European countries without any clear organizational formalization. However, the influence of his ideas became more and more widespread. This was facilitated by the publication of books in Prague, Paris and Berlin, as well as the Eurasian conferences, which attracted great attention, held in the three above-mentioned capitals and in Sofia. At the same time, the collection "Eurasian Timepiece" was published (9 issues for 1922-1929).
As the Eurasian movement expanded, its differentiation took place, and in a number of cases its supporters switched to tough political positions in the fight against the Soviet system. Sharp political polarization led in the late 20s. to the split of the Eurasian movement. Its center moved to Paris, where, under the leadership of L.P. Karsavin, in 1927 the Eurasian Seminar began to operate and the Eurasia newspaper was published. The split in the editorial board of "Eurasia" led to the actual cessation of the activities of the Eurasian movement. One of its founders, N. S. Trubetskoy, in a letter to the editor dated December 31, 1928, noted “with regret” the “fact of a split”, recognized the impossibility of restoring the internal unity and balance of Eurasianism and announced his withdrawal from the Eurasia newspaper and from the Eurasian organizations. And only in Prague in the 30s. 20th century a Eurasian group of scientists survived who did not associate their activities with political goals.
Eurasianism as a sum of ideas is complex in its content. It is no coincidence that the Eurasians called their teaching a system formed on the basis of an integrated approach. Although the critics of the Eurasianists, primarily their “neighbors” in Prague, A.A. Kizevetter and P.N. Milyukov, did not recognize their teachings, considering it a manifestation of "racist ideology", "maximalism" (3).
Many works of Russian historians and philosophers are devoted to the history of the emergence of Eurasianism as a scientific ideological trend (4). Their assessments of Eurasianism deserve a special study. We are interested in the essence of Eurasianism, its main conceptual principles, which may be of interest to determine the possibility of their use and application to the analysis of the problems of the Eurasian space in the 21st century. Here are just some of the main provisions of the concept of Eurasianism. Its founders believed that for several centuries the space of Russia, its territory increased due to "organic expansion in Asia" (5). And the Muscovite state, which grew out of North-Eastern Rus', became the unifier of the Eurasian world, adopting the cultural and political heritage of the Mongols. Hence the conclusion that the Russian people are "a special ethnic type, approaching both Asian and European."
According to P.N. Savitsky, the culture of Russia is neither completely European, nor one of Asian. It does not have a mechanical connection of the elements of both. This is a median, Eurasian culture, in which the Great Russians play the leading role. The borders of Eurasia coincide with the borders of the Russian Empire. Eurasia is a special part of the world, a special continent, “some closed and typical whole both in terms of climate and in terms of other geographical conditions” (6). And further: "Eurasian culture is connected with other cultures, but Asian cultures are closer to it." “Eurasians perceive the Russian world as a special world both geographically, linguistically, historically, and economically, and in many other senses. This is the “third world” of the Old World, not an integral part of either Europe or Asia, but different from them and at the same time proportionate to them” (7).
For the future of Russia, the Eurasianists believed, it was necessary to finish the work of Peter I, that is, “following the tactically necessary turn towards Europe, make an organic turn towards Asia” (8). At the same time, it was emphasized that Russia differs from Germany or France, which are based on national-state unity. The basis of Russia is the cultural unity of the mainland.
Not all Eurasians proposed to turn away from Europe - on the contrary. But in order to "get closer to Europe, you need to become spiritually and financially independent of it." The Eurasianists argued that Russia could be independent. “It represents a peculiar geographical environment, in its simple, broad outlines, sharply different from the fractional structure of Europe” (9).
N.S. was more categorical. Trubetskoy. In his opinion, the Eurasian world is a "closed and complete geographical, economic and ethnic whole", which differs both from "Europe proper and from Asia proper". And further, he emphasizes that nature itself indicates to the peoples of Eurasia "the need to unite and "create their national cultures in joint work with each other." Russia should not be a "province of European civilization." The European way of thinking is designed for "a completely different psychological type of people." Russia's task in the future is to finally realize its true nature. It is necessary to "create an independent and self-sufficient Russian-Eurasian culture on grounds that are completely different from the spiritual foundations of European civilization" (10). This maximalist assertion by Trubetskoy has been repeatedly criticized by the opponents of Eurasianism.
One of the founders of Eurasianism, Georgy Vladimirovich Vernadsky, saw only the geographical environment as the main factor in the formation of the Russian Empire. Therefore, each of the five sections of the monograph “Inscription of Russian History” published in 1927 by the Eurasian Book Publishing House in Prague contains the words “forest” and “steppe” in the title (11).
The ideas presented by G.V. Vernadsky in "The Inscription of Russian History", formed the basis of a number of conceptual provisions of Eurasianism: there are no two Russian
this, "European" and "Asian", but there is only one Russia - "Eurasian" or "Russia - Eurasia"; the continuous progressive movement of Russians to the east is not "imperialism", but "the inescapable internal logic of local development"; the Russian people not only applied themselves to their local development, but to a large extent they themselves created this local development (12).
Some historians of the Eurasian movement argue that it arose on the basis of Slavophilism. But it's not. Although many of the views seem to be taken from the Slavophiles, which is evident from the main provisions of Slavophilism.
The ideas of the Slavophiles are most fully covered in a series of articles by the Russian philosopher Nikolai Yakovlevich Danilevsky, published in 1869 in the journal Zarya, and then included in his work Russia and Europe, published in 1871. Already here, in its main chapters, cultural and political relations are considered Slavic world and Germano-Romansky, the complexity, and sometimes hostility, of relations between Europe and Russia; questions are raised about Russia's belonging to Europe and about the identity of European civilization with the universal one; cultural-historical types and laws of their development are determined; an attempt was made to clarify the differences in the character of peoples, their "mental structure", as well as the influence of "historical education" on them. And all this leads the author to the main conclusion of the Slavophiles: “Europeanization is a disease of Russian life”, and salvation is “an all-Slavic union” (13).
The Slavophils have the priority of putting forward the Russian “national idea”. F.M. wrote about the “Russian national idea” with irony. Dostoevsky, which the Slavophiles defined by the formula of "universal universal unity". The beginning of it, in their opinion, will be laid by "all-Slavic unity." F. M. Dostoevsky called this “national idea” a “conciliatory dream outside of science” (14). By the way, his views had a direct impact on the formation of the Eurasian ideological trend. It is from Dostoevsky that Eurasians find an important guide: “In our future destinies there may be Asia - that is our main outcome” (15), Dostoevsky wrote, and later added that Russians are not only Europeans, but also Asians.
Eurasianism felt the imprint of two contradictory and even mutually hostile Russian ideological currents: Slavophilism and Westernism. It is no coincidence that in the works of the Eurasians we find many of the views of the Slavophiles N.Ya. Danilevsky and K.N. Leontiev, Westerners I.S. Turgenev, P.Ya. Chaadaeva and M.N. Katkova. But the Eurasianists do not accept any of these two currents. Their views are original and constitute a completely independent ideological direction. The first Eurasians, far from the political ambitions of the leaders of the white emigration, believed that the main thing was to preserve the "Eurasian community." That is why they considered it
historically substantiated the empire of Genghis Khan, Muscovy, the Russian Empire, the USSR - as successive forms of the Eurasian association.
The ideologists of Eurasianism created the concept of the historical, geopolitical, cultural, ethnographic unity of Russia - Eurasia, which, in their view, is a special geo-natural, historical and socio-cultural world.
"Unconscious" Eurasianism. The founders of Eurasianism paid special attention to the preservation of the Eurasian space. In 1926 P.N. Savitsky, speaking about the “naturalness” of Russia’s borders, noted that “despite the terrible upheavals of the war and revolution”, in general, with deviations in both directions, “the borders of Eurasia coincide with the borders of the Russian Empire” (16).
The Eurasianists have repeatedly noted that “the essence of the Russian-Eurasian idea remained unconscious (emphasized by me. - IO) and even distorted, however, only in the ruling stratum called upon to implement it” (17). This unconsciousness, according to the Eurasianists, was also characteristic of the Soviet leaders. The idea of Eurasianism, wrote P.N. Savitsky in 1933, “lives in the USSR, but just does not realize his existence in it” (18). The Russian Revolution, he continues, did away with Russia as part of Europe. “She discovered the nature of Russia as a special historical world. But at present (i.e., in the mid-30s of the 20th century - I.O.) this is nothing more than a hint and a task. The goal of the Eurasianists is to realize it in historical reality” (19).
P.N. Savitsky realistically assesses the situation in Soviet Russia from the point of view of the preservation of the Eurasian trend, especially in connection with the national-linguistic policy. “Giving freedom and scope to the use and development of all the diverse languages of Eurasia, the communist government undoubtedly adjoins a healthy and creative Eurasian tradition” (20). However, the Eurasianists consider "communist internationalism" as a guiding principle in the life of the USSR to be utopian, fictitious. They consider “general Eurasian nationalism” to be such a principle.
The attitude of the Eurasians towards the Soviet regime was quite complex and contradictory. On the one hand, they were, of course, opponents of communism. On the other hand, their hostile attitude towards Western liberal democracy made them supposedly allies. Soviet authorities, which was the subject of vicious attacks on the Eurasians by their "brothers" in emigration. The Eurasianists were guided by the "third way", but they did not develop this topic in detail.
The Eurasianists recognized that in the USSR the Russian people are and will be only one of the equal peoples inhabiting the state territory and taking part in its management. This change in the role of the Russian people in the state poses a number of problems for the Russian national identity. In order for certain parts of the former Russian Empire to
should exist as parts of one state, the existence of a “single substratum” of statehood is necessary. “The national substratum of the state that is called the USSR can only be the totality of the peoples inhabiting this state, considered as a special multi-ethnic nation (highlighted by me. - I.O.) and as such having its own nationalism. We call this nation Eurasian, its territory - Eurasia, its nationalism - Eurasianism ”(21), - noted N.S. Trubetskoy.
In the work “The Legacy of Genghis Khan” published in Berlin in 1925, he noted that Soviet foreign policy manifested “the rejection of false Slavophile and pan-Slavist ideologies, the rejection of imitating the imperialist manners of the great European powers. In relation to the East, for the first time, the correct tone was taken, corresponding to the historical essence of Russia - Eurasia: for the first time, Russia recognized itself as a natural ally of the Asian countries ... In domestic politics, it should be noted the rejection of Russification, which is organically alien to the historical elements of Russia. (22).
It was no coincidence that the Prague Eurasians emphasized the similarity of many of their ideas of the Eurasian state structure with the Soviet concept of a multinational state. The resolutions of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks on the national question manifested a kind of "unconscious Eurasianism." It is enough to turn to the history of the formation of the USSR to see the obvious desire of Soviet leaders to preserve the unified state space of the Russian Empire. Without going into the details of the complex process of solving the national question in the USSR, one should pay attention to two diametrically opposed options for state building (23).
On the eve of the official proclamation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, a heated discussion began in the central party leadership and especially in republican party organizations about unification. The main project put forward by I.V. Stalin and supported by S.M. Kirov, S. Ordzhonikidze, D. Manuilsky and others, provided for the entry of national republics into the RSFSR, and, as indicated in a letter from the Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine D.Z. Manuilsky I.V. Stalin on September 4, 1922, - "the liquidation of independent republics and their replacement with broad real autonomy" (24). This project was adopted on September 24 by the commission of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) and was called "autonomization", or a federation based on autonomy.
Another, Leninist version provided for a federation based on contractual principles. A fierce struggle unfolded around the question of unification. F.E. sharply opposed the Leninist project. Dzerzhinsky, for which he - a Pole by nationality - was called by Lenin "a great-power Russian bully". Seriously ill V.I. Lenin on September 27, 1922 in a conversation with I.V. Stalin sharply criticized the idea of "auto-
nomization”, considering it erroneous, detracting from the rights of nationalities. At the same time, he dictated a letter to the members of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the RCP(b), insisting on the creation of a "federation of equal republics" (25). On October 6, 1922, the plenum of the Central Committee of the RCP(b) adopted a Resolution on the conclusion of an agreement between the independent Soviet republics (including the RSFSR) on their unification into the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, leaving each of them the right to freely secede from the Union (26).
"Autonomization", of course, was closer to the preservation of the old administrative-state structure of the Russian Empire, and a very quick, arbitrary, without any justification definition state borders each of the Soviet republics led to serious problems in their relationship. As for the proclaimed “right of nations to self-determination up to and including secession,” then, in the opinion of classical Eurasians, this principle could play a dangerous role in the future. Some of them even spoke with all certainty about a bomb planted under Russian statehood.
The Eurasianists were more impressed by the idea of "autonomization", which in the future was supposed to lead to the unification of the peoples of Russia. They paid special attention to "cultural autonomy" within the framework of the regional or provincial territorial-administrative division of the Soviet state. That is why the supporters of "autonomization" were sometimes called the Soviet "unconscious Eurasians". In contrast to them, the opponents of “autonomization”, whom the philosopher A.S. Panarin calls the representatives of "early communist romanticism", they counted on "the disappearance of national borders, the withering away of the state and the merging of peoples into a single communist family" (27).
In Soviet times, the few researchers who were interested in the ideas of the Eurasianists believed that their merit was the definition of a "multinational state". Although the Eurasianists believed that Russia needed a "strong centralized government", since its endless expanses do not contribute to fragmentation and require economic and political unity.
One of the leaders of the Eurasianists N.N. Alekseev was very radical in his assessment of the Soviet national policy. “Appealing to national self-determination,” he wrote, “the communists laid a time bomb (highlighted by us. - IO) under the internationalism they preached” (28). “So the Bolsheviks created numerous national republics among peoples who had not thought about any autonomy before” (29).
In the Soviet Union, of course, there was no formalized Eurasian ideological current. But there were bright personalities who scientifically developed the problems of the Eurasian space, trying to find out its past and outline the future. Among them, first of all, it is necessary to name Lev Nikolaevich Gumilyov, whose works for a long time caused heated disputes between ethnographers, historians and geographers.
Among the Soviet Eurasians, the Novgorodian writer Dmitry Balashov also stands out. In the collection of the Novgorod writers' organization "Veche", D. Balashov continues to develop the ideas of classical Eurasians, especially in connection with their attitude towards the West. “Is our history better or worse, and are we ourselves the countries and peoples of the West? Not better and not worse, we are different” (30). Much in the views of D. Balashov coincides with the concept of ethnogenesis L.N. Gumilyov. What they have in common is “the idea that Russia is not a European, but a Eurasian country, that following the European path of development was a mistake in Russia” (31).
Estimates of Soviet Eurasianism were very diverse. In the Zvezda magazine, in an article entitled "Soviet Eurasianism", B. Paramonov evaluates it as a "cultural-political concept" (32). The author is trying to understand "how the current - Soviet - Eurasianism differs from the original" (33). He sees this difference in the departure from the cultural concept to the science of nature - "Russian nature, which determined the traditional features of Russian historical life" (34).
L. N. Gumilyov sees the roots of Eurasianism, nevertheless, in Slavophilism. “It was in the midst of the Slavophiles that the scientific direction called "Eurasianism". His adherents, whose works are hushed up in our country, proceeded from the fact that Russia has two beginnings - Slavic and Turkic. I consider this approach reasonable and reasonable, it is fruitful not only when considering issues of the past, but also when solving today's problems” (35).
In the works of L.N. Gumilyov, in his correspondence with G.V. Vernadsky clearly traces not only a new ethnographic approach (“ethnogenesis of the Eurasian peoples”) to the foundations of the development of the Eurasian space, but also the desire to continue the research of the Eurasians regarding the “spatial continuity” of states on the territory of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union. Gumilyov emphasized that the Eurasians, while perfectly understanding the essence of the Soviet state system, nevertheless saw a certain continuity in the development of the country. He drew attention to the statement of N.S. Trubetskoy, that “the national substrate of that state, which was formerly called Russian Empire, and now it is called the USSR, there can only be the totality of the peoples inhabiting this state, considered as a special multinational nation, and as such having its own nationalism "(36). Later he would call this "multiple nation" a "superethnos", referring to the system of several ethnic groups. In essence, this coincides with Brezhnev's formula "the Soviet people are a new historical community." But at the same time, Gumilev clearly defined that in terms of civilization it is the Russian ethnos that is the bearer of the civilizational heritage of the entire Eurasian space.
Based on the views of L.N. Gumilyov, it is clear that the definition of clear state boundaries for each of the fifteen Soviet national republics
The public was artificial from the very beginning, since in pre-October Russia, and indeed in the past, there were no such boundaries. Therefore, he foresaw the state fragility of the countries after the collapse of the USSR.
The works of LN Gumilyov deserve a special study. His views, of course, differ from the ideas of the first Eurasians, although he called himself "the last Eurasian." Gumilyov clearly shows the transformation of classical Eurasianism into a "theory of ethnogenesis". From Eurasianism he adopted ecological determinism and "historical cycles". His concept of ethnogenesis and the Eurasian community suggests the evolution of Russia into a qualitatively new interethnic union of peoples. Gumilev believed that only the knowledge of the meaning of their unity by the Russian peoples would provide them with the future of their national life (37).
Neo-Eurasianism. In the 80-90s. 20th century attempts are being made to revive Eurasian ideas and supplement them with new original views. The works of L.N. Gumilyov. But in terms of the depth of research, none of the neo-Eurasians (with the possible exception of the philosopher A.S. Panarin) has risen to the level of L.N. Gumilyov, not to mention the classical Eurasians.
At the turn of the two centuries in Russia and in some other CIS states, public organizations who called themselves Eurasian. On April 21, 2001, the founding congress of the All-Russian Political Public Movement "Eurasia" was held in Moscow. Program documents and the Charter of the Movement were adopted, which reflected very broad goals: from strengthening Russian statehood to creating welfare state on the basis of historical and cultural traditions, Eurasianism, sovereignty, etc. (38).
Before and after the congress, there were numerous conferences and debates devoted to the ideas of Eurasianism. They revived interest in Eurasianism, familiarized them with its main ideas. The main attention was given to philosophical views Eurasianists, and Eurasianism itself was more appreciated as an original trend in Russian foreign philosophical thought. The works of O.D. Volkogonova (39), L.I. Novikova and I.N. Sizemskaya (40), L.I. Gumilyov (41), publications in the journal "Problems of Philosophy" in the 90s. last century, as well as defended in the same years, many Ph.D. dissertations on the philosophy of Eurasianism. Almost simultaneously, works are published in the USA, Germany and France, the authors of which (M. Raev, M. Bassin, L. Lux, W. Laker, M. Laruelle, P. Serio) consider certain aspects of Eurasian ideas, compare them with Western ones. ideological currents, in particular with German classical philosophy.
After the collapse of the USSR, the idea of creating a Eurasian Union that arose and interested many was deliberately hushed up by the new government or distorted. President of the Russian Federation B.N. Yeltsin was dismissive of the proposal
President of Kazakhstan N.A. Nazarbayev to create the Eurasian Union. ON THE. Nazarbayev played a major role in stimulating the formation of neo-Eurasianism as an ideological movement designed to continue the scientific search for classical Eurasianism. In addition to his state-political activities and initiatives to create and operate the Commonwealth of Independent States, N.A. Nazarbayev is credited with developing a number of theoretical problems of the Eurasian space and its integration potential (42).
Nazarbayev substantiated the idea of more intensive integration of the Eurasian countries: close economic cooperation, joint solution of defense and environmental problems, creation of a common cultural and information space. At the same time, he emphasized that in the integration of these countries “it is Russia that can become the pivot” (43). He also owns the authorship of the detailed project "Formation of the Eurasian Union of States" (44). However, all his ideas did not find wide support among the Russian ruling elite (and even among the Central Asian neighbors, and even more so among Ukraine) and, as a result, did not become the basis of a specific program being implemented.
Character traits neo-Eurasianism were outlined in the materials held in May 1994 " round table”, dedicated topical issues Eurasianism. Wishing to "adapt" the concept of Eurasianism to Russian situation 90s In the twentieth century, the participants in a rather heated discussion tried to put forward a project for the modernization of Russia, a way out of an acute crisis. It is no coincidence that therefore the collection of materials of the "round table" was entitled as "Eurasian project of modernization of Russia" (45). Considering the prospects of a "new Eurasian Union", the project participants put forward purely speculative options, which boiled down to clearly politicized constructions.
The development of the problems of Eurasianism continues on the pages of the journal "Security of Eurasia" (2002-2008), as well as in the special edition "The Formation of Eurasian Security" (M., 2005).
There are sharp ideological and political contradictions among the neo-Eurasians, as evidenced by the materials of the international conference held in Barnaul in early June 2001 and dedicated to the "Eurasian worldview and the potential of Siberia in the 21st century." A.V. Ivanov, who opens the collection of conference materials, in this regard, clearly distinguishes between modern anti-Eurasianism, pseudo-Eurasianism and pseudo-Eurasianism (46). The contradictions existing among the neo-Eurasians were also reflected in the materials of the collection of articles published by Russian University friendship of peoples (47).
Among the neo-Eurasians there are various, sometimes contradictory currents: from liberal to extremely conservative. However, A.G. Dugin, V.V. Kozhinov, V.V. Malyavin, G.D. Chesnokov, A.S. Panarin, V.Ya. Pashchenko and others consider themselves Eurasians. Many of them are united by an anti-Western trend.
A kind of incentive for increasing interest in the ideas of Eurasianism, as well as for the constitution of the neo-Eurasian
the significance and relevance of Eurasian ideas by the Russian leadership. Speaking at the University L.N. Gumilyov October 10, 2000 in Astana, President Russian Federation V.V. Putin stressed: “The charge that the Eurasian ideas carry is especially important today, when we are building truly equal relations between the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States. And on this path, it is important for us to preserve all the best that has been accumulated over the centuries-old history of civilization both in the East and in the West” (48).
Neo-Eurasianism has become one of the significant worldview platforms, but by no means the only one. If A.S. Panarin and B. Erasov focused on theory and politics, emphasizing the national diversity of Eurasia (49), then E. Bagratov and his journal "Eurasia" considered mainly culture and folklore, Slavic-Turkic mixing, and A. Dugin, who represented the extreme right, preached mainly the political views of anti-Westernists in the journal Elements (50).
Some neo-Eurasians interpret the East-West relations differently than the Eurasians of the 1920s, which in some cases are replaced by the North-South vertical (A. Panarin, A. Dugin). Instead of the geographic factor, which among the Eurasians was decisive in the development of peoples, neo-Eurasians consider biological and ethnic factors to be the main elements (L. Gumilyov, A. Dugin). A comparative analysis of the most important postulates of classical Eurasianism and neo-Eurasianism can provide an opportunity for an objective assessment of their differences, as well as positive and negative trends in their worldview in order to develop important problems. modern development in the Eurasian space and determining its future.
The most profound reflections, in many respects close and even developing the ideas of the Eurasians, belong to A.S. Panarin. Paying tribute to the anti-Western sentiments of the Eurasians, he spreads their views on the current situation in the world. “Westernization means not so much a happy assimilation to the West according to the attainable criteria of “catch-up development,” writes Panarin, “but rather the decomposition of the organic integrity of non-Western cultures and the appearance in their place of disordered conglomerates that turn into a dump of technological and social slags of developed countries” (51) .
Panarin pays special attention to "spiritual integration" in the post-Soviet space. “The Eurasian space, no doubt, needs painstaking organizers and workers, entrepreneurs and experts, because our everyday life is cluttered and neglected. But no less does he need fiery bearers of Faith and Meaning, because only taken in the spiritual dimension it acquires unity, attraction and centripetal potential. No other form of integration can give a reliable result without the spiritual integration associated with the discovery of a new meaning of history” (52).
A.S. Panarin sharply and very well-reasonedly criticized many postulates of Gorbachev's foreign policy, which was based on the recognition of "universal values" and, on this basis, led to a colossal
concessions to the West. It should be borne in mind that the definitions of "common human civilization" and "common human values" are extremely inaccurate, if not meaningless. After all, ethnographic concepts are hidden behind each of these definitions. Therefore, European culture cannot be the culture of mankind. As noted back in 1920 in Sofia, N.S. Trubetskoy, "this is a product of the history of a certain ethnic group" (53).
The ideas of the conservative wing of the neo-Eurasians are so vast and radical in the geopolitical sense that they may deserve special study. But since they are very far from classical Eurasianism, there is no point and no opportunity to consider them in more detail. We confine ourselves to mentioning some of their geopolitical postulates.
Resolutely opposing a unipolar world, neo-Eurasians at the same time deny the possibility of multipolarity. They proclaim the need for a "new bipolarity". But what is the novelty and difference of their bipolarity from the times cold war, they do not define, limiting themselves to a vague postulate: “The new Eurasian bipolarism should proceed from completely different ideological premises and be based on completely different methods” (?!) (54). Having done quite a lot for the reprinting of the works of the first Eurasians, A.G. Dugin did not perceive their main ideas, being mainly engaged in geopolitics and the construction of a "national religion". Under the pretext of searching for a “Russian idea,” some neo-Eurasians preach great-power aspirations, which was not at all characteristic of classical Eurasians.
Neo-Eurasianism was criticized not only in Russia, but especially sharply - in the West. There are many works devoted to Eurasianism and neo-Eurasianism. Their analysis deserves special attention. But, perhaps, in the most concentrated form, the attitude of the West to early and late Eurasianism is set forth in the books of the French researcher Marlene Laruelle, especially in her last one, published in 2008 in Washington on English language, "Russian Eurasianism: the ideology of the Empire" (55). Laruelle assesses neo-Eurasianism as the most sophisticated of all conservative ideologies. She believes that the postulates of classical Eurasianism are used by neo-Eurasianists and politicians to promote their political projects. And the authors of these projects do not even try to deeply study and critically comprehend the ideological heritage of the founding fathers (one cannot but agree with this!). Laruelle devotes a significant part of the book to a detailed analysis of the views of Gumilyov, Panarin and Dugin, as well as Kazakh and Turkish Eurasianism, which the author characterizes as "local nationalism."
Interest in the ideas of Eurasianism, which manifested itself after the collapse of the Soviet Union and in the context of general geopolitical instability, did not lead to any new serious theoretical research. To transfer the Eurasian ideas of the 20s. 20th century the situation at the end of the century and the beginning of a new one was quite difficult. This required deep scientific research.
But that did not happen. The ideas of the Eurasianists, without their understanding and comprehension, were used by politicians of various directions, from liberals to democrats, for the sake of realizing their narrow party tasks.
The diverse views of the majority of neo-Eurasians are mainly speculative, general philosophical in nature. They have nothing to do with understanding the current socio-economic and political situation in the post-Soviet space. The very definite actions of external factors (primarily the policies of the US and the European Union) in individual CIS states are also not taken into account. That is why neo-Eurasian projects are mostly utopian. Only a multifactorial, comprehensive approach, a combination of theoretical, historical, political, economic, geographical, legal and other studies can help determine the real prospects for the development of the entire Eurasian space and the opportunities for Russia to play a key role in this development.
NOTES
(1) Lux L. Eurasianism and conservative revolution // Questions of Philosophy. - 1996. - No. 3. - S. 59.
(2) See Shkarenkov L.K. The agony of white emigration. - M., 1987.
(3) See, for example: Kizevetter A.A. Eurasianism // Russian economic collection. 1925. - Prince. 3; The same // Philos. Sciences. - 1991. - No. 12.; Kizevetter A.A. Russian history in Eurasian style // Vandalkovskaya M.G. historical science Russian emigration: Eurasian temptation. - M., 1997; Milyukov P.N. Russian "racism" // Vandalkovskaya M.G. Historical science of Russian emigration: "Eurasian temptation". - M., 1997.
(4) See, for example: Vandalkovskaya M.G. Historical science of Russian emigration: "Eurasian temptation". - M., 1997; On the history of Eurasianism. 1922-1924 - M., 1994; Pashchenko V.Ya. Ideology of Eurasianism. - M., 2000; Pushkin S.N. Eurasian doctrine. - St. Petersburg, 1999; Tolstoy N. The origins of Eurasianism. - M., 1994; Chesnokov G.D. Eurasianism and problems of modern Russia. - M., 1995.
(5) Savitsky P.N. Eurasia continent. - M., 1997. - S. 37; Russia and Europe. Reader on Russian geopolitics. - M., 2007. - S. 406.
(6) Ibid. - S. 410.
(7) Ibid. - S. 410-411.
(8) Ibid. - S. 409.
(9) Ibid. - S. 411.
(10) Trubetskoy N.S. Legacy of Genghis Khan. - M., 1999. - S. 282-285.
(11) Vernadsky G.V. The outline of Russian history. - SPb., 2000.
(12) Ibid. - S. 23, 281.
(13) Danilevsky N. Ya. Russia and Europe. - M., 1991. - S. 265.
(14) Dostoevsky F.M. Sobr. cit.: In 30 volumes - L., 1978-1984. - T. 25. - S. 19-20.
(15) Ibid. - T. 27. - Book. 2. - S. 32.
(16) Savitsky P.N. Continent Eurasia... - S. 408.
(17) Ibid. - S. 410.
(18) Ibid. - S. 411.
(19) Ibid. - S. 412-413.
(20) Ibid.
(21) Trubetskoy N.S. The legacy of Genghis Khan ... - S. 500.
(22) Ibid. - S. 276.
(23) See: Gililov S.V.I. Lenin is the organizer of the Soviet multinational state. - M., 1960.
(24) Ibid. - S. 168.
(25) See "Lenin's collection". XXXVI. - M., 1959. - S. 497.
(26) I.V. Stalin no longer advocated the idea of "autonomization", and later, as his authoritarian power consolidated, he believed that the "power of the center" could ensure the unity of the Soviet state. But the main thing for Stalin was a real threat - Lenin's intention to remove him from office Secretary General Central Committee, as Lenin reported in his letter to the members of the Central Committee.
(27) Panarin A.S. Russia in the cycles of world history. - M., 1999. - S. 175.
(28) Alekseev N.N. Russian people and state. - M., 1998. - S. 366.
(29) Ibid. - S. 368.
(30) Balashov D. And love is needed. - Novgorod, May 1989 Special. release.
(31) Paramonov B. Soviet Eurasianism // Zvezda. - 1992. - No. 4. - S. 196.
(32) Ibid. - S. 195.
(33) Ibid. - S. 196.
(34) Ibid. - S. 197.
(36) Modern Russian idea and state. - M., 1995. - S. 29.
(37) Gumilyov L.N. From Rus' to Russia. - M., 1992. - S. 292-300.
(38) See: Program documents of the All-Russian Political Public Movement Eurasia. - M., 2001.
(39) Volkogonova O.D. The Image of Russia in the Philosophy of the Russian Diaspora. - M., 1998.
(40) Novikova L.I., Sizemskaya I.N. Russian philosophy of history. - M., 1999.
(41) Gumilyov L.N. Historical and philosophical works of Prince N.S. Trubetskoy // Trubetskoy N.S. History, culture, language. - M., 1995. - S. 31-54.
(42) See Nazarbaev N.A. Eurasian Union. Ideas, practice, perspectives. 1994-1997. -M., 1997.
(43) Ibid. - S. 31.
(44) Eurasian space: integration potential and its implementation. - Almaty, 1994. - S. 3-12.
(45) The Eurasian project of modernization of Russia: "for" and "against" // social theory and modernity. - 1995. - Issue. 18.
(46) Eurasian outlook and the potential of Siberia in the 21st century. - Barnaul, 2002. - S. 3-10.
(47) Eurasian idea and modernity. - M., 2002.
(48) Eurasianism. Theory and practice. - M., 2001. - S. 7.
(49) Panarin A.S. Russia in the civilizational process (between Atlanticism and Eurasianism). - M., 1995.
(50) Dugin A. Mysteries of Eurasia. - M., 1996; He is. Fundamentals of geopolitics. Geopolitical future of Russia. - M., 1999.
(51) Panarin A.S. Russia in the cycles of world history. - M., 1999. - S. 25.
(52) Ibid. - S. 119.
(53) Trubetskoy N.S. The legacy of Genghis Khan ... - S. 33.
(54) See Dugin A.G. Fundamentals of geopolitics. - M., 2000. - S. 162.
(55) Laruelle M. Russian Eurasianism: An Ideology of Empire. - Washington and Baltimore, 2008.
EURASIAN IDEA: ORIGINS AND EVOLUTION
Center of Political Studies Institute of Economy Russian Academy of Science Novocheremushkinskaya Str., 46, Moscow, Russia, 117333
This article examines the political presuppositions and expanding intellectual impact of Eurasianism, that has a long and remarkably dense intellectual history stretching back to the 1920s (and with antecedents in the nineteenth century). The article is aimed to context and to bring together the many varieties of Eurasianism that have emerged over the 20th century.
Key words: Eurasianism, Russia, P. Savitskiy, N. Trubetskoy, G. Vernsdskiy, Neo-Eu-rasianism.
In addition to Gumilyov - Savitsky, Trubetskoy, Danilevsky.
Slavophilism (Khomyakov, Danilevsky). They rigidly oppose Orthodox and Western identities.
Russian spirituality - firstly - is irrationality, secondly - these are spiritual values that are not amenable to rationality.
Formula Moscow - the third Rome. messianic role of Moscow. Rus'.
Messianism is a kind of guardianship, a way of forming liberation wars.
The theory is based on the fact that Russia is not connected with either Europe or Asia.
This is a unique Eurasian culture. The Tatar-Mongol invasion played a special role in its formation, a mixture of cultures took place - a certain identity arose.
Danilevsky, Toynbee, Spengler: there are no single processes, there are cultures, each of them separately as a human organism. Reaches the highest level of civilization, it falls apart.
In the modern period, Eurasianism was prohibited.
Eurasianism. In a broad sense, in geopolitics - the totality of all political ideas and concepts that involve economic and political integration and strengthening international cooperation between some part of the post-Soviet countries, which in the past constituted a single state. In a narrow sense - the Russian philosophical and political current of social thought that appeared in the Russian Diaspora in the early 20s of the 20th century. Eurasians viewed Russia as "Eurasia", as a synthesis of Europe and Asia; the result of this synthesis is a kind of "third world", endowed with features characteristic of a particular cultural type. The bearers of the Eurasian views of that time expressed their deep disappointment with the achievements of Western civilization (primarily in the spiritual sphere). The main Eurasianist was Prince Trubetskoy. His theory was the assertion of the radical dualism of civilization, the understanding of the entire historical process as a competition between two alternative projects: European and Eurasian. The European project was expressed in the thesis about the superiority of the Romano-Germanic civilization over the rest of the world. The Eurasian project is being implemented in the planetary struggle of mankind against the universal planetary Romano-Germanic yoke.
The main ideas of Eurasianism are most clearly represented in the work of N. S. Trubetskoy’s close friend and associate, Petr Nikolayevich Savitsky, an economist by education, who in his ideology combined loyalty to national traditions with an impulse to the future, with social modernism. P. N. Savitsky was the true soul of Eurasianism, its undisputed leader. The main idea of P. N. Savitsky is the idea of Russia-Eurasia. In accordance with this idea, Russia is a special civilizational formation, the “middle earth”. As a middle land, it is not part of Europe, and not a continuation of Asia. It is a special, independent spiritual and historical reality - Russia - Eurasia, not a mainland and not a continent, but a synthesis of world culture and world history, deployed in space and time. Russia is not a national state, but a civilization that emerged on the basis of the synthesis of the Aryan-Slavic culture, Turkic nomadism and the Orthodox tradition. The Russian man (Great Russian) combines both Slavic and Turkic substrata. Entering into scientific circulation the term "Russia-Eurasia", Savitsky emphasized the continentality of Russia, its difference from oceanic civilizations.
Neo-Eurasianism. The ideas of Russian Eurasianism received an original continuation in the 60s-70s of the XX century in the work of the Russian historian Lev Nikolaevich Gumilyov, the son of the famous Russian poet Nikolai Gumilyov and the poetess Anna Akhmatova. L. N. Gumilyov is the author of the original theory of ethnogenesis and ethnic cycles, based on geographical determinism and organicism, characteristic of the teachings of P. N. Savitsky, whose follower Gumilyov considered himself.
The most important ideas of this theory are the ideas of Eurasian passionarity and ethnogenesis, which he formulated in the book "Rhythms of Eurasia". These ideas formed the basis of a qualitatively new trend - neo-Eurasianism.
The idea of passionarity. L. N. Gumilyov considered his main task, like the Eurasians, to justify the special mission of Russia as Russia-Eurasia, its historical right to represent the interests of continental forces. To this end, he resorts to a historical approach, revealing the historical origins of Eurasian unity. The initial concept in his theory was the concept of passionarity, or passionary impulses. According to Gumilyov, passionarity is an inexplicable synchronous surge of biological and spiritual energy, which suddenly sets in motion a sluggish historical existence, capturing various established ethnic and religious groups. In this dynamic burst of spatial, spiritual and technical expansion, heterogeneous "residual" ethnic groups are fused into new active and viable forms. But the passionary surge cannot last forever. Gradually he
is replaced by a calmer equilibrium state. When explaining these processes, Gumilyov proceeds from the fact that in each ethnic group the ratio of the number of people with and without passionarity is constantly changing. The decline in passionarity is predetermined by the fact that with each new generation there are fewer and fewer energetic passionate people, and the social system consistently goes through different stages (phases): growth, rise, breakdown, decline.
Ethnogenesis. The idea of passionarity is used by L. N. Gumilyov to explain the emergence of peoples, that is, ethnogenesis. The main reason for ethnogenesis, according to Gumilyov, is the mutations of the biosphere caused by processes occurring in outer space. These mutations are expressed in changes occurring at the boundaries between ethnic groups (coinciding, as a rule, with the junctions of landscapes). Under the influence of various kinds of bursts of cosmic energy, various changes occur in the earth's biosphere: new ethnic groups are born, superethnoi are emerging. At the same time, some ethnic groups disappear, others remain in a "relic" state, others are born and begin their historical path. The Great Russians are such a young ethnic group that arose at the junction of Europe and Asia and rallied around itself the super-ethnos of Russia-Eurasia or the Eurasian Empire. From these positions, Gumilyov also approaches the explanation of the Russian ethnic group. The Great Russians, according to the scientist, represent a special ethnic group that has developed as a result of the Turkic-Slavic merger, which occurred as a result of a powerful passionary push associated with the invasion of the Mongol-Tatars. As a result of this merger, a specific fusion of Forest and Steppe arose, which predetermined the essence of civilization, culture, and behavioral stereotypes of the Great Russians. Many ethnic groups lived on Russian soil in the 12th century. But the Slavs were the dominant force, adopting largely Byzantine culture. In interaction with the Steppe, the Russians acted as representatives of the Forest, that geographical environment that predetermined the role of Rus' in interaction with the Steppe, that compatibility (complimentarity), which became the basis for the creation of Russia-Eurasia.
Modern Russian Eurasianism is presented in several varieties: This current develops the ideas of P. Savitsky, N. Trubetskoy, L. Gumilyov, directed against liberal Westernism and narrowly ethnic nationalism. Another current of modern neo-Eurasianism is based on the idea of a continental Russian-Iranian union. According to representatives of this trend, the Russian and Turkic peoples have a positive complementarity, a coincidence of economic and political interests, basic moral values. Another current of neo-Eurasianism is developing the idea of recreating the economic and political unity of the former republics of the Soviet Union. Each of the named currents of modern neo-Eurasianism focuses on a specific goal, but all of them in their main content oppose modern Atlanticism and mondialism, which launched a strategic offensive on the Eurasian continent.
Eurasianism is a socio-political doctrine that arose in the 20-30s of the twentieth century. The main ideas of Eurasianism were disseminated in many publications, active propaganda of views was carried out - circles were created, seminars were held, lectures were active. At the center of the philosophy of the Eurasianists is the idea of the identity of Russia as a special country that organically combines elements of East and West. The idea of historical and geographical synthesis was the contribution of Eurasians to Russian social science. There are two directions in Eurasianism: analysis of the history of Eurasia as an attempt to create a common Eurasian state; Russian history on the territory of Eurasia as a process of gradual acquisition and development of the territory. In the late 1920s there was a split in the movement. Since the mid-1930s, Eurasianism as an organized movement ceased to exist.
Nikolai Sergeevich Trubetskoy is one of the founders of Eurasianism. He was engaged in the study of languages and cultures of the Slavs, Finno-Ugric and Caucasian peoples. He was one of the first to apply a tripartite approach to the comparative study of languages and cultures: historical-genetic, real-historical and typological. For the first time he formulated the concept of "linguistic union", which characterized languages that are widespread in the same geographical and cultural-historical area and have a number of common features. The ratio of cultures is based on the same principles as the ratio of languages and cultures of neighboring peoples have a number of similar features. Consequently, cultural-historical zones arise among such cultures, the boundaries of which mutually intersect, and this entails the formation of cultures of a mixed or transitional type. He came to the conclusion about the existence of the law of diversity of national cultures. He rejected the assessment of peoples and cultures by degrees of perfection and put forward the principle of their equivalence and qualitative incommensurability. At the same time, he defended the idea of "true nationalism", which evaluated all phenomena based on the interests of the development of its own culture, at the same time, it recognizes the right of every nation to express its individuality.
Trubetskoy in the late 20s of the twentieth century, after the split of the Eurasian movement, left the organization and moved away from politics. Engaged in scientific and pedagogical activities.
Pyotr Nikolaevich Savitsky is the founder and head of the Eurasianism movement. He was mainly engaged in the development of the geographical and economic foundations of Eurasianism. Considering the concept of "Eurasia", Savitsky attached importance not only geographical, but also cultural and historical. He connected the peculiarities of socio-cultural development with geographic and spatial conditions. The geographical unity of Russia - Eurasia was considered as the basis of the economic, cultural, political life of the peoples living in this space and was called "place development". The main idea was the provision on the need for a synthetic approach to the study of Russian history. Along with giving special system-forming importance to the geographical factor, he assumed the possibility of proving the all-round unity of the Russian-Eurasian world.
The system proposed by him for the movement of cultural centers, in the course of historical development, in an area with an increasingly cold climate. He proposed the economic idea of a "public-private" system, in which private initiative exists along with state planning regulation. The future economy of Russia, taking into account the natural features of Eurasia, will be oriented towards the internal division of labor. This will lead to its transformation into a coherent and independent "mainland economy"
Petr Petrovich Suvchinsky is an active participant in Eurasianism. Suvchinsky was engaged in the study of the philosophy of Russian history, in the center of which was the concept of religious culture. Considering a historical phenomenon, he singled out two sides in it: external, predictable and controllable, comprehended by ordinary logical means, that is, the sphere of facts; internal, spiritual-psychic - spontaneous and irrational sphere of religious culture.
Speaking about methodology, Suvchinsky put forward the task of establishing the structure of a historical phenomenon, its "center" and "periphery" in a central place. He designated the Russian worldview as "concentric", and all the problems are centered around the theme of the purpose of life.
