Unlike the scientific world, the mass public consciousness lives on myths. Every society has its own national historical myth, which plays a central role in national identity. A society that has lost this national myth is sooner or later doomed to disintegration. Everywhere in the world, the national myth tends to see the history of its people better than it is - to remember heroic epochs and forget about facts that are unpleasant for society. A feature of modern Russia is that here, on the contrary, the historical myth represents the past of our country in many ways worse than it was in reality …
In 1917, there was a rupture of national identity. The main task of the cultural policy of the Bolsheviks was the creation of the Soviet myth, part of which was the formation of a negative image of pre-revolutionary Russia. In this, the Bolsheviks acted as the successors of the left intelligentsia, which for decades had been preparing the revolution, destroying the religious, national and monarchical foundations of Russian culture.
Now, unlike the Soviet period, scientific works are freely published in which the world of old Russia is objectively studied, but this information for the most part remains the property of scientists. Most of the modern school and university textbooks on the history of Russia still seem to be written on the model of the "general line" of the party, slightly updated. And now schoolchildren and students learn about the past of our country through stories about idlers and bloodsuckers, landowners, landless peasants, poverty-stricken workers, general illiteracy of the population and talentless tsarist generals who lost all battles.
Below is only a part of the most widespread myths in our society about the past, as well as data from the memoirs of contemporaries and scientific research - Russian, American, English, French on these topics.
Myth 1. Russia, unlike advanced Europe, has always been a feudal country
Almost all European states (except Norway and Sweden) went through a long period of serfdom. Moreover, the countries of Western Europe are characterized by an earlier beginning and, accordingly, an early end. So, in England serfdom was established in the 7th century. and ended for the majority of the population by the XIV century, although a small part of the peasants was dependent even before the middle of the XVII century. In most countries of Central and Eastern Europe, including Russia, at this time, most of the peasants were free. Serfdom came much later and ended accordingly later. Russia was no exception to this.
Promotional video:
Of course, there was little good in serfdom. The Russian state was forced to establish this order at the end of the 16th century, in order to thus maintain the noble army - the main military force of the state, without which it would be quickly blown to shreds by Russia's warlike neighbors. The great Russian historian S. M. Soloviev saw in serfdom "the cry of despair of a state in a desperate economic situation."
The era of serfdom continued in Russia from the end of the 16th century. (in science there is still a dispute about the exact date) until 1861, when peasant dependence was abolished by the decree of Emperor Alexander II. The liberation took place soon after the abolition of serfdom in the states of Central Europe, which are closest to Russia, Prussia (50 years) and Austria (12 years).
Thus, the era lasted in Russia for a little more than 2.5 centuries, while the history of the Russian statehood totaled more than 1 thousand years 862 - 1917. Serfdom occupied no more than 1/4 of the history of old Russia.
In general, it is wrong to define the whole history in terms of one feature - serf Russia, bourgeois England, etc. For example, in the United States, slavery was abolished only 4 years after the abolition of serfdom in Russia and 1.5 centuries after the abolition of slavery (servitude) by Peter I. And the remnants of this slavery (the unequal position of blacks) were eliminated in the USA, in general, only in 60 biennium XX century after a stubborn social struggle.
But everyone understands that it is wrong to call the United States a slave country, although this institution accompanied the Americans for most of their history (by the way, not only blacks were slaves, there were also white slaves).
But in relation to Russia, many of our compatriots consider the epithets of slave, serf to be quite appropriate. But in fact, these definitions do not say anything about Russia, but only about our attitude towards it. Americans seem to love their country more.
Myth 2. Russians are a slave people, which is not surprising, all Russian peasants until 1861 were serfs
In addition to the nobles and peasants in Russia, there were numerous other estates and groups of the population. There were free Cossacks, walking people, townspeople, merchants, yasak people, service foreigners, service people by device and their descendants - odnodvorov, coachmen, monks, priests, etc.
In addition, not all peasants in Russia were serfs. According to the calculations of the Russian historian Yu. V. Gauthier, there were 3,443,292 husbands in Great Russia for 2 revisions (1743). sex serfs 53.7% of all peasants and 3 million souls husband. sex of state peasants. 3 revision (1763) received 3 786 771 husbands. sex of serfs (53%) and 3 400 000 state peasants, 4 revision (1783) 5 092 869 souls husband. sex of serfs (53%) and 4 470 600 state, 5 revision (1796) 5 700 465 souls husband. sex of serfs (53%) and 5 million state.
Thus, throughout the XVIII century. serfs made up just over half of the total mass of the Great Russian peasantry. There were entire provinces in Russia, in terms of their territory surpassing entire European states, where serfdom was not at all - Pomorie, Siberia. It is characteristic that in the western territories that entered the Russian Empire, the percentage of the serf population was much higher. So in the Baltics, 85% of the peasantry were serfs.
In the XIX century. the number of serfs rapidly declined through the transition to other classes. Only in 1816 - 1856. more than 1 million souls passed to other estates. sex of serfs. The last before the peasant reform 10 revision of 1857 found 62.5 million people in the empire, of which 23 million were serfs, only 34% of the population. Thus, at the time of the abolition of serfdom, serfs were in a minority - 1/3 of the total population.
Myth 3. Russian peasants were the poorest in Europe
This is a very widespread idea in our society, while the Europeans themselves, who have lived in Russia for a long time and who had the opportunity to compare the standard of living of Russians with the peoples of Europe, give completely different information about the life of the Russian people.
Croatian and Catholic Yuri Krizhanich (1618-1683), who lived in Russia for more than 15 years and well studied Russian life at that time, noted the greater wealth and higher standard of living of the population of Muscovite Russia in the 17th century. in comparison with its closest neighbors - "the Russian land is richer and better than the Lithuanian, Polish and Swedish".
At the same time, the states of Western and Southern Europe - Spain, Italy, France, England - surpassed Russia at that time in wealth and living standards of the upper classes. However, at the same time, the lower classes - peasants and townspeople, according to Krizhanich, "live in Russia much better and more conveniently than in those rich countries."
It is interesting that even the peasants and slaves in Russia at this time wore shirts decorated with gold and pearls. Krizhanich, critical of many Russian traditions, at the same time writes that both poor and rich people in Russia, in contrast to Western Europe, differ little in their table "they eat rye bread, and fish and meat." As a result, Krizhanich concludes - “in no kingdom do ordinary people live so well, and nowhere do they have such rights as here”.
The reforms of Peter I severed the cultural ties between the upper and lower classes, and the situation of the common people worsened. However, in the XVIII century. according to contemporaries, the standard of living of Russian peasants was higher than in many countries of Western Europe. According to the observations of the French traveler Gilbert Roma, who traveled through Siberia in 1780. the Siberian peasant lived better than his French counterpart. The Englishman John Parkinson noted that Russian peasants dress much better than ordinary people in Italy. And during the overseas campaigns of the Russian army in 1813 - 1814. the officers were surprised at the poverty of the Polish and French peasantry in comparison with the Russian.
A. Pushkin, who had a deep mind and knew the Russian countryside well, noted: “Fonvizin at the end of the 18th century. traveled to France, says that, in good conscience, the fate of the Russian peasant seemed to him happier than the fate of the French farmer. I believe … The duties are not at all burdensome. The cap is paid by the world; corvee is determined by law; quitrent is not ruinous (except in the vicinity of Moscow and St. Petersburg, where the variety of industrial turnover intensifies and irritates the greed of the owners) … Having a cow everywhere in Europe is a sign of luxury; we don't have a cow is a sign of poverty."
Pushkin's testimony is confirmed by foreigners. The captain of the English fleet Cochrane, who traveled around Russia for 4 years, wrote in 1824, "the situation of the local peasantry is much better than the condition of this class in Ireland." Cochrane noted in Russia "an abundance of food, they are good and cheap", as well as "huge herds" in ordinary villages. Another English traveler wrote in 1839 that Russian peasants live much better than the lower classes, not only in Ireland, but also in England and Scotland.
Myth 4. Serfs had no rights, landlords tortured and killed peasants with impunity
The rights of serfs were limited in comparison with other groups of the population, however, the serf could be a plaintiff and witness in court, swore allegiance to the tsar, and had the right, with the consent of the landowner, to transfer to other estates.
According to one of the largest modern historians BN Mironov, "contrary to the opinion widespread in literature, the peasants both legally and in fact up to 1861 had the right to complain about their landlords and actively used it." In 1767, Catherine II forbade her to file complaints personally, “past the governments established for that”.
Unlike many European states (for example, Poland, where the murder of a serf was not considered a state crime at all and was subject only to church punishment), the laws of Russia protected the life and property of peasants from landowners. "The murder of a serf was considered a serious criminal offense." The Cathedral Code of 1649 shares the measure of responsibility of the landowner for the unintentional and premeditated murder of the peasant.
In the event of an unintentional murder (in a fight), the nobleman was imprisoned until a special order of the king. With the premeditated murder of a peasant, the culprit was executed, regardless of social origin. During the reign of Elizabeth Petrovna, when the death penalty in Russia was actually abolished, the nobles responsible for the death of their peasants were usually sent to hard labor.
The government closely followed the relationship between landlords and peasants. Catherine II in 1775 authorized the governor generals to prosecute landowners for cruel treatment of peasants up to the confiscation of estates and transferring them to the management of trusteeship councils. Alexander I in 1817 ordered the arbitrariness of the landowners to bring them to justice and take the estates under the guardianship of the treasury.
For 1834 - 1845 the government brought 2,838 nobles to trial and convicted 630 of them. During the reign of Nicholas I, about 200 estates were taken into custody annually, taken for the mistreatment of the landowners with the peasants. The government constantly regulated relations between landlords and peasants. In 1834 - 1845. in Russia, 0.13% of the peasants were convicted for disobeying the landlords and 0.13% of the landowners for exceeding their power over the peasants.
Myth 5. Liberation from serfdom was carried out exclusively in the interests of landowners
Such an assessment was firmly established in our historical literature for a long time, thanks to V. I. Lenin, who wrote that the reform was "carried out by the serfs in the interests of the serfs." For the sake of fairness, it must be said that a lawyer by education and a party leader by vocation V. I. Lenin never received a history education, was neither a historian nor just an objective researcher, and wrote works not in scientific, but exclusively in political interests.
This extreme form of bias, when Russian reality was simply adjusted to the views of the leader, aroused surprise even among the founder of Russian Marxism G. V. Plekhanov.
In fact, the reform of 1861 led to massive ruin of the landlords, the sale of tens of thousands of landlord estates, so it is clearly not necessary to say that the government carried out the reform only in their interests. According to a well-informed contemporary of events, Prince V. P. Meshchersky, the main leaders of the reform of 1861, Ya. I. Rostovtsev, N. A. Milyutin, Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich and other representatives of the interests of the St. Petersburg bureaucracy, not only were not guided by the interests of the landowners, but, on the contrary, rather wanted to destroy the foundations of the landed nobility, creating a "critical and difficult situation" for them. Of course, this assessment is also one-sided. In the reform of 1861, the state tried to find a compromise between peasants, landowners and their own interests.
The peasants received in the course of the reform of 1861 an average of 4.8 dessiatines per capita husband. floor, or 14, 4 dessiatines per yard (1 dessiatine was approximately 1.1 hectares). According to the calculations of the economist Yu. E. Yanson, the subsistence minimum for a peasant family was in 1870. 10 - 11 acres per yard. Thus, in general, the land received was sufficient. The main problems of the Russian countryside by the beginning of the XX century. there was a rapid demographic growth (in 1858 - 1914 the peasant population increased by 2, 2 times and, accordingly, the average per capita allotment decreased by the same amount) and a low culture of agriculture (the landowners who survived after 1861 received crops on the same lands in several times higher than that of most peasants).
According to French historians, "despite all the restrictions, the Russian reform turned out to be infinitely more generous than a similar reform in neighboring countries, Prussia and Austria, where the serfs were given completely naked freedom, without the slightest piece of land."
Myth 6. All the land until 1917 was owned by landowners
This is one of the saddest and longest delusions in Russian history. For several decades before the catastrophe of 1917, Russian revolutionaries agitated among the peasants, trying to prove that all their economic problems were caused exclusively by the dominance of landlord land ownership.
After the victory of the Bolsheviks, this slander naturally entered all textbooks of Russian history, and to this day is reproduced in part of modern textbooks. Meanwhile, scientists who work with archival and statistical materials have long proved that such views are completely untrue.
Let's turn to the facts. In total, there were 381 million dessiatines of land in European Russia, of which, before the reform of 1861, landlords (120 thousand landowners) owned 121 million dessiatines, i.e. less than 1/3. Almost all the rest of the territory belonged to the state, which provided the lands suitable for cultivation to the communities of state and palace peasants. In addition, it should be borne in mind that tens of millions of dessiatines due to natural conditions (tundra, taiga) could not be used in agriculture.
In 1861, the former landlord peasants received 34 million dessiatines from their landlords, who immediately after the reform had 87 million dessiatines. The reform of 1861 dealt a heavy blow to the nobility's land tenure; about half of the landowners were unable to manage their households in the new conditions and sold the land. Subsequently, about 1 million acres of landlord's land was sold annually, the main buyers of which were the peasants.
As a result, by 1905 the landowners owned only 53 million dessiatines, and 42 million dessiatines were sold by the landlords during this period to peasants (26 million) and merchants (16 million). In addition to the purchased land, all the peasants (former state, palace and landowners) and the Cossacks had 139 million acres of allotment land. Thus, by 1905, taking into account the purchased land, the peasants and Cossacks had 165 million dessiatines of land against 53 million dessiatines from the landlords, but, in addition, a significant part of the noble land was leased by the peasants.
By 1916, as a result of sales, the landlords had only 40 million dessiatines of land, and a significant part of it was land with forests. As a result, by 1916, according to zemstvo statistics, peasants owned 90% of arable land and also 94% of cattle in European Russia, as well as 100% in Asian Russia (2). According to the Russian historian S. G. Pushkarev, “in terms of the composition of land ownership, Russia was already a completely peasant country (to a greater extent than any of the European countries)” (3). When in 1918 the peasants divided 40 million acres of landlord's land among themselves, it turned out that peasant allotments had grown insignificantly and these lands did not play a big role, 1 tithe of the nobility by that time accounted for 5.5 peasants.
At this time, the Bolsheviks openly declared that the slogan of the seizure of the landowners' lands did not have "serious economic significance", but was raised to rouse the peasants against the legitimate government. In general, characterizing the beginning of the XX century. Harvard professor Richard Pipes notes that unlike the European countries of England, Spain, Italy, France, where the vast majority of the land was in the hands of large landowners, before the 1917 revolution, "Russia … was a classic example of a country of small peasant farms."
The irony of history is that it was after the victory of the revolutionaries that the peasants were forcibly herded into large farms - collective farms, through which the state exploited the people's labor, making virtually all peasants farm laborers. And those who resisted were killed or sent into exile. Modern historians estimate the number of victims of collectivization alone at about 10 million people.
Myth 7. Tsarist Russia was an economically backward country
By the beginning of the XX century. Russia was one of the 5 largest countries in the world in terms of economic development: USA, Germany, England, France, Russia. According to the American researcher R. Kennedy, by 1900 Russia ranked 4th in the world in terms of world industrial production, its share was 9%. At the same time, the growth rates of the Russian economy over a long period of 1890 - 1914. were the highest among all 5 leading industrial countries in the world.
By 1917, 81 thousand km of railways had been built in Russia; over the past 37 years, since 1880, more than 1.5 thousand km were built per year. Even during the war years, Russian industry continued to grow (now mainly due to military production). After a slight decline in 1914 - 1.3%, in 1915 the increase was 10.8%, and in 1916 - 10.2%. Only in 1917, after the start of the revolution, there was a deep decline in industry - 20.2%. As a result, it was only during the reign of Nicholas II that Russian industry quadrupled its productivity.
Accelerated development took place not only in industry, but also in agriculture. Traditionally, Russia was the largest agricultural country in the world and supplied the states of Europe with its products. For 20 years of the reign of Nicholas II 1894 - 1914. the harvest of grain doubled, increased from 2 billion to 4 billion poods. In 1913, the grain harvest was 1/3 higher than the other three largest agricultural countries in Argentina, Canada and the United States combined. Russia provided 1/4 of the world bread production and ranked 1st in the world in terms of total agricultural production.
During the reign of Emperor Nicholas II, the well-being of the population grew rapidly. This is indicated by demographic growth. For 20 years, the population has increased by 50 million people. (by 40%). Consumption of basic products more than doubled. Savings deposits rose from 300 million in 1894 to 2.200 billion in 1913. The English writer M. Bering, who spent several years in Russia, wrote: "The broad masses, the peasantry, are in a better economic situation than ever."
In 1913, one of the largest economists in the world, Edmond Tary, on the instructions of the French government, studied the state of the Russian economy and concluded: “If the affairs of European nations from 1912 to 1950 go the same way as they did from 1900 to 1912, Russia by the middle of this century will dominate Europe, both politically and economically and financially."
Myth 8. Russian workers lived in poverty
It can be said that all states were characterized by cheap labor at the first stages of the development of capitalist enterprises. Later, contrary to the Marxist doctrine of the constant and unswerving impoverishment of the working class as capitalism developed, workers' wages gradually increased.
In Russia, the second half of the 19th century. became a time of mass construction of capitalist production, at this time many entrepreneurs tried to get super-profits by exploiting workers. Characteristically, the imperial government took a firm position on the labor question. During the reign of Alexander III and Nicholas II, a number of laws were issued that protected workers from the tyranny of the manufacturers; a factory inspection was established to supervise the implementation of legislation.
The 1897 law prohibited work over 11.5 hours a day, and on Saturdays, holidays and night shifts over 10 hours. At this time, in most European countries, there were no legal restrictions on the time of male labor at all. The 1903 law made employers responsible for accidents with workers at work.
What did the Russian labor legislation look like against the background of international experience? In 1912, US President Taft publicly declared that Nicholas II "created such perfect working legislation that no other democratic state can boast of." This fact is not surprising, the Russian government was independent of the influence of its own and foreign capitalists, in contrast to England, France or the United States, where these circles exerted the main influence on politics.
In 1896, at a meeting with St. Petersburg industrialists, S. Yu. Witte said: “You can imagine a government more favorable to industry than the present … But you are mistaken, gentlemen, if you imagine that this is being done for you, in order to make it easier for you the greatest profit; the government mainly means the workers; you, gentlemen, do not seem to understand this."
During the Soviet era, works on the history of the working class contained the obligatory provision that the poverty of the workers was increasing. It is characteristic that the Russian revolutionaries themselves, when they did not need to agitate the masses, wrote in their memoirs about a different level of life for the working class.
The founder of Russian Marxism, GV Plekhanov, recalled the workers of St. Petersburg in the second half of the 19th century - “the entire environment was distinguished by significant mental development and a high level of its everyday needs. I was surprised to see that these workers live no worse, and many of them are even much better than the students. On average, each of them earned from 1 ruble. 25 kopecks up to 2 rubles in a day.
According to Plekhanov, some of the workers already at that time rented "beautifully furnished rooms, bought books and sometimes liked to pamper themselves with a bottle of good wine." In addition, "all the workers of this layer dressed incomparably better … than our student brother." Each of them had a good suit and looked like a "gentleman" much more than any student in it, moreover, students - at that time usually come from noble and bourgeois families, often reproached the workers for "bourgeois propensity to be smart."
But maybe such a standard of living was available only in the capital? The wages of workers in Russia were lower than in England and France, but they could buy more because of the cheapness of products. The American historian Blum found out that in 1856, for example, the food of the blacksmith and carpenter in the Urals was healthier and more abundant than that of their contemporaries, the English and French workers of these specialties, despite the higher wages of the latter.
Moreover, in Russia already in the 19th century. by no means all breeders were looking only for profit, there were interesting experiments with attracting workers to participate in profits. Engineer N. N. Iznar in his memoirs talks about the Maltsevsky factory district, located in the Smolensk, Kursk and Orel provinces. In this district there were 22 large factories for the manufacture of locomotives and carriages, which employed several tens of thousands of workers.
In 1875 the capitalist SI Maltsev created a partnership with a capital of 6 million rubles, in which workers and employees were provided with a share in profits. For difficult jobs, an eight-hour working day was set. The workers built stone houses of 3-4 rooms, with a large plot for a garden and a vegetable garden. Schools, vocational schools and hospitals were also built. The workers' wages were already at that time 170 rubles a year. The Maltsev factories were not an isolated example.
Russian economists of the early XX century. noted as one of the main reasons for the slow development of plants in the Urals, the special relationship that had developed between the old breeders and workers. Unlike the new capitalists, the old factory owners who made big capital “were completely uninterested in the further development of their factories and conducted business in an extremely routine manner, even without some shade of pure charity to the local working population, which risked starvation without factory work. The population, in turn, is accustomed to looking at the fact that factories must feed them and that it cannot be otherwise."
By the XX century. a fairly high standard of living was also characteristic of the workers' provinces. Nikita Khrushchev recalled that until 1917, working as a mechanic in a Donetsk mine, he lived better financially than in the 1930s, when he was a high-ranking party official in Moscow:
“… Working as a simple mechanic, I earned 45 rubles. with prices for black bread at 2 kopecks, for white bread - 4 kopecks, a pound of lard - 22 kopecks, an egg cost a penny, boots, the best Skorokhodovskie - 7 rubles. What is there to compare. When I was doing party work in Moscow, I didn’t have half of that, although I occupied a rather high place.”
Then Khrushchev honestly admits that in the 1930s. "Other people were even worse off than me." It is clear that ordinary workers and employees received much less than the secretary of the Moscow City Party Committee.
But perhaps NS Khrushchev belonged to a highly skilled labor aristocracy and his standard of living was sharply different from that of most workers? By 1917, Khrushchev was only 22 years old and he simply did not have time to get such a qualification. In 1909, a contemporary, demanding an increase in the salary of young scientists, reported: “Only a bad locksmith receives 50 rubles. a month - the salary of a candidate for professor, - and a good locksmith receives 80 - 90 rubles. per month". Consequently, the young NS Khrushchev received not as a representative of the labor aristocracy, but as a "bad locksmith." His standard of living was typical.
The Bolsheviks roused the workers to the revolution, promising them mountains of gold. But in reality, the policy of "war communism" of the Bolsheviks led Russia to economic collapse. By 1921, Russian industry reduced its productivity by 7 times, and the standard of living of workers, according to the Bolshevik economist Kritsman, fell to 1/3 of 1914.
During the NEP period, the standard of living of workers began to rise gradually to the level of 1914, but the policy of industrialization pushed it back again. Only in 1950 - 1970. the standard of living of workers gradually approached the standard of living in tsarist Russia, but in the era of "perestroika" and "liberal reforms" it fell again.
The modern historian, Doctor of Historical Sciences, BN Mironov calculated that even in 1985 in the Soviet Union the standard of living of workers rose slightly in relation to 1913, and for many products the level of tsarist Russia had not yet been reached. So in 1913 a carpenter could buy 135 kg for a monthly salary. beef, and in 1985 - only 75 kg.
But, let us add, in 1985, in contrast to 1913, the worker could buy so much meat only theoretically - in almost the entire territory of the state this product was sold on coupons - 1 kg. person for a month. As a result, in our time, the majority of Russian citizens (except for several regions of the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug, Moscow), living on a salary, "can buy less food for it than a skilled worker in 1913 and even in 1853 - during the time of serfdom."