Pyzhikov is the latest historian. Alexander Vladimirovich Pyzhikov died. Didn’t Soviet ethnography develop all this?
On September 16, 2019, at the age of 54, Doctor of Historical Sciences died Alexander Vladimirovich Pyzhikov.
Alexander Vladimirovich Pyzhikov
In 1989, A. Pyzhikov graduated from the history department of the Moscow regional pedagogical institute them. N.K. Krupskaya, ten years later defended his Ph.D. thesis in historical sciences “Socio-political development of Soviet society in 1953–1964.” A year later, he defended his doctorate on the topic “Historical experience of political reform of Soviet society in the 50s–60s” (M., 1999).
However, in last years Pyzhikov became widely known for his research into the schism of the Russian Church in the 17th century and the history of the Old Believers. In his works, he tried to show that the Russian Old Believers played an important role in the revolutionary events of the early 20th century and the formation of the Soviet system. He put forward these thoughts in such books as “The Facets of the Russian Schism,” “The Roots of Stalin’s Bolshevism,” and “Rising Over the Abyss.”
A. Pyzhikov, in particular, argued:
Soviet society is a society of non-popovites. The merchant millionaires who started everything with tsarism needed capitalism, the liberal Western version, like in France and England. There was nothing else there. Let it be national capitalism, although even I now doubt it. Some of them, especially those close to Cornelius, like to say that they behaved like the national bourgeoisie. Only she behaved absolutely not nationally.
The Soviet team is popovites. The priestly model is a Western model, private property is sacred, and there is no talk. The main mass, non-church, non-priest - this is what the USSR grew up on. They did it.
Alexander Vasilyevich also introduced the term “Ukrainian-Polish yoke” into journalistic circulation. In his interview with Komsomolskaya Pravda he stated:
What is the Ukrainian-Polish yoke? Of course, first of all this is the construction of a new church. The Russian Orthodox Church under the Romanovs and before are two big differences... Before the Romanovs, the Russian Church was very different. In the pre-Romanov church there were very strong trends that the church could not be a commercial entity... Ukraine became a source of state power for the Romanovs. They came here, and Alexei Mikhailovich canceled all Zemsky Councils. He didn’t need them... The enslavement of the peasants also became the work of the Romanovs.
Among the Old Believers, the works of A. Pyzhikov aroused controversial opinions. Many said that his concept was tendentious and not fully supported historical sources. Others expressed that, despite the fact that Pyzhikov’s ideas are too categorical, they contain a sound grain that allows us to take a different look at the history of the Old Believers and the Russian state.
On air on the Vesti FM radio station in March 2017, there was a meeting between the historian and the Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church, Metropolitan (Titov). At this meeting, Alexander Vladimirovich noted:
Old Belief did not appear out of nowhere, it has always been there! It is the essence of this land. This is not even an old belief, but a true belief. This is the main spiritual path of our country, this is an expression of the essence of Russia itself, which in principle does not exist without Old Belief. Where is the center of gravity in the cause of the split? The center of gravity of the Old Belief was among the people, and what was imposed had its center of gravity in the elite. And this created a split. It can only be overcome on conditions of equality. Old Belief is illegitimate, as the Russian Orthodox Church declares. But how can equality be achieved if the Old Believers are considered illegitimate?
Readers of our site can also familiarize themselves with the correspondent of Nakanune.RU.
For more than a year now, in the capital's conservative political circles there has been nothing but talk about the works of the historian Alexandra Pyzhikova. Alexander Vladimirovich is present in the media as the author of publications about the Old Believers, the Orthodox schism of the 17th century, and the Russian economy turn of XIX-XX centuries and the problems of the revolutions of 1917. One gets the feeling that he historical concept Russian Bolshevik-Old Believers began to live its own independent life. People are looking for their Old Believer roots, and the Old Believer mentality is now used to explain everything incomprehensible that exists in their native country. On the one hand, this is the fate of any new humanitarian idea that manages to win minds. On the other hand, over the past 30-40 years there have been too many fashionable concepts, but also almost as many disappointments in them.
A Nakanune.RU correspondent met with Alexander Pyzhikov at Zakhar Prilepin’s farmstead, where the historian had a creative evening, and tried to understand the essence of his ideas, whether this was fresh historical knowledge or just another fashionable salon theme.
“Without Fedoseevites there would be neither the party nor you and me”
Over the weekend, more than 20 people came to Zakhar Prilepin’s hut in the Moscow region to listen to historian Pyzhikov. Lectures, by the way, are paid, and it’s not a long way from Moscow, but the person of the doctor of sciences is popular here. Even before the event began, people gathered around him. We break through to ask a few questions about his relationship with modern historical scholarship.
« There are specialists at the Institute of History who recognize my ideas, we meet and discuss. After all, I have serious work from a scientific point of view, I’m not like some popular publicists who blab something in the media", Pyzhikov answers.
For those who graduated from the history department in the “2000s,” his name is not an empty phrase, and any student who honestly prepared for seminars on the history of the USSR during the Khrushchev period is familiar with his work. Pyzhikov is a recognized expert on this topic, and there are no complaints about his doctorate. However, Alexander Vladimirovich is present in the media not as a specialist on Khrushchev, but as the author of publications about the Old Believers, the Orthodox schism of the 17th century, the Russian economy at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries and the problems of the 1917 revolutions. But this topic is still far from unanimous recognition among colleagues. However, those gathered on the farm are looking for something fresh, philosophical and intriguing in Pyzhikov’s ideas, for example, a detective story in the search for Soviet identity, and not at all strictly scientific. The opening speech is made by the owner of the farm, Zakhar Prilepin.
« Intuitively, I guessed that the truth was somewhere in this direction. I needed someone to explain why I thought this way. In the person of Pyzhikov, this man suddenly appeared. This is not even a theory, but a historical fact, which no one has fully realized", he reflects.
Prilepin immediately explains that right now the topic of the national roots of the Russian revolution is becoming especially important for him.
Pyzhikov begins to talk about this with a reference to the nephew of the Slavophile writer Aksakov, Alexander. His uncle, Ivan, is remembered at school as one of the founders of the Slavophile circle and the author of “ Scarlet Flower", the nephew was an official on special assignments in the Ministry of Internal Affairs under Nicholas I, where he studied the consequences of the schism in the Russian Orthodox Church. Pyzhikov claims that from his reports to the department, which the Minister of Internal Affairs, and possibly the Emperor himself, were familiar with, it followed that official statistics on Old Believers did not give a real picture. It is possible that there were 10 times more Old Believers, or at least those who sympathized with them, in the Russian Empire of the mid-19th century.
« Aksakov even wrote to the minister: “We don’t know what kind of Russia we are leading?” We take the data that is available, which is given everywhere, about a few percent(Old Believers - approx. Nakanune.RU), multiply them 10-11 times. As soon as we multiply, then we can somehow start from it and figure out how it really was. As a result, a picture will be presented that, thanks to Nicholas I, although he was not very happy when he received this data, we will not be able to cross out"- says the historian.
« We are dealing with an environment that is only externally, officially called Orthodox, but it is not such“, he immediately adds.
At the same time, the national roots of the Russian revolution should not be sought among the Old Believers. More precisely, not among those Old Believers about whom the average person knows at least something: the rich Moscow merchant clans. The origins of Soviet identity were not hidden in the houses of Savva Morozov and Ryabushinsky, even if they sponsored Lenin’s party from there. The goals of the Old Believers merchants, according to Pyzhikov, did not go beyond the fight against St. Petersburg financial and industrial groups. The guest of the farm suggests paying attention to the priestless Old Believers and already there looking for the origins of “Stalinist Bolshevism” (“The Roots of Stalinist Bolshevism” is one of his most famous books).
He immediately illustrates his thesis with a life story that happened to an acquaintance of his, an employee of the Institute of History, in the 80s. One day, together they were raking through letters that came to the institution, and came across a complaint from an old Bolshevik. The person outlined the essence of the problem in the text and asked for support. For the sake of credibility, he signed himself as an “old Bolshevik” and, which came as a surprise to Pyzhikov’s acquaintance, as a certain Fedoseevite. In order to somehow sort out the matter, the comrade took the letter to the elderly sector manager with the question: “ Old Bolshevik - understandable. And what kind of Fedoseevite?» « The Fedoseevites are those without whom neither the party nor you and I would exist. Cut it on your nose“, - the historian quotes the answer of the elderly boss.
After some time, the lecture ends and Nakanune.RU correspondent Ivan Zuev has the opportunity for a more detailed conversation.
“When everything broke through in 1917, the Old Believers were already ready”
Isn’t it radical to say that Bolshevism emerged from the Old Believers?
I often hear this, especially from liberals, but I also hear it from stubborn Marxist-Trotskyists. These are all the costs of one sad circumstance: all these intellectuals of ours leaf through books, rather than read them. If they had approached this more thoughtfully, they would have realized that there was no question of any Old Believers who had infiltrated the Communist Party and were doing any business there. This is an absurdity worthy of irony.
I am not talking about practicing Old Believers. I emphasize this all the time. Of course, they were there, because the Old Believers did not disappear anywhere, despite the repressions, which no one denies, as well as the fact that they also affected the Old Believers. I’m talking about people who came from an Old Believer environment. The human mentality, roughly speaking, the soul, is formed from the age of seven. Specifically, in the Old Believer community, from the age of seven he was placed in a “circle”, in mutual responsibility, communal, as was customary. At this age, the foundation with which a person lived his life was laid. What is instilled in youth will not go away. The Old Believer mentality is characterized by very specific qualities that are clear to everyone even without me: collectivism, rejection of the foreign. Then they said that people were allegedly knocked out of their trousers by foreign commissars in leather jackets. Nothing like that, the commissars did not play any role here, this is just how people were raised, this is how they felt about themselves.
But doesn’t this sound similar to the thesis that Russian communism emerged from Jewish shtetls, or that “the Englishwoman made a mess”? What's the difference?
Well, you can say that, why not? But what does this have to do with reality? None.
I'm talking about something else. Yes, there were bearers of communist ideas outside Russia, outside the Russian people, rightly so. And these are the same Marxists. Moreover, the communist idea is strongly implicated in globalism. Global capital must be opposed by global power, which means that all national governments and people go to hell. Only the fight against international globalism—capital—has become relevant. It is to this that the world international global proletariat must be raised.
Of course, in the Bolshevik Party there were bearers of this idea, and they united around the personality of Lev Davidovich Trotsky, as well as the group that he represented. Moreover, this movement was the first when Marxism set foot on Russian soil. But when all these are here historical events happened when completely different forces entered the party, which did not accept Trotsky’s Marxism, everything changed. Trotsky himself complained about this, saying that some idiots had arisen who did not understand anything and simply clung to the bright idea that he and Zinoviev represented. They fanned Marxism, they say. And Stalin relied precisely on these forces. Which gave Trotsky a reason to say that he was a true Marxist.
However, the force, the energy that created the USSR, of course, was not charged with Trotskyism. Trotsky was an unacceptable figure for the majority, like all his comrades, even Zinoviev, who tried to win over the Russian working class to strengthen his positions, but this ruined him. When he opened the door and brought huge masses into the party on the so-called Leninist calls, he received enemy force against himself. So all of Zinoviev’s leadership claims and ambitions melted away.
Do you want to say that Marxism came from the West and appealed to ordinary people who somehow transformed it to suit themselves?
What are the specifics of Russia? The religious conflict, from which all European countries emerged, happened in Russia a hundred years later, but it was no less bloody, although it took a different direction. We were unable to separate the warring parties. In Europe it worked. Catholics and Protestants were divided. In Russia, two forces did not arise after the religious conflict. There is only one left. If in the West they call it the Reformation, everyone studies it, then Russia is supposedly left without the Reformation. But, in fact, it was there, it just remained latent and did not break through. The catalyst for its breakthrough was 1917 and its consequences. This is where she broke through. The rivers of blood that our priests shed...
The religious reformation in Europe created the bourgeoisie, but in our country? If the revolution of 1917 was a delayed reformation, then in our country it created a communist state led by materialists? Is that how it works?
Certainly. It’s easy to compare Western Protestants and Old Believers. Protestants organized themselves around private property. For them it is sacred; whoever has more of it, God loves the same. In Russia, due to the fact that the Old Believers remained the losing side, remained in a discriminatory position, they were forced to survive. There's no time for property here. The situation itself forced them to turn on the collectivist mechanisms that they had cultivated within themselves for 200 years. When everything broke through in 1917, they were already ready.
“I told Cornelius that there would never be a meeting with Putin, but here it is!”
Do you have data on how much money the Old Believers spent to support the Bolsheviks? Do you have any documents?
It’s all in the police archives, you just need to pick it up and count it. I cited some documents in “Facets of the Russian Schism,” but you can find more if you set your mind to it, for that I am calm. The main thing is not to mix everything together, to have attention to detail. What details do I mean?
When we use the term “Old Believers,” we are not very careful. For example, we forget about “priests” and “non-priests”. I myself was guilty of this at one time. But these are completely different groups. The fact of the matter is that the Old Believers were very fragmented...
When we say that the Old Believers helped the revolution... The “priests” helped. And what about the “priests”? Probably 80% of Moscow millionaires belonged to the priestly class. And here it doesn’t matter that Ryabushinsky had a “piece of paper”, that he was a parishioner of the “Rogozhskoye Cemetery”, but Konovalov did not, and someone left long ago. The main thing is that it was a single clan that fought for a place in the sun in Russian economy. This clan was strongly united by pragmatism. Therefore, the same Guchkov, who even was married to a French woman and had not gone to church for a long time, was still with them. I went or didn’t go, this all has only local history significance. For understanding the meaning, this does not matter.
So these “priests” who grew out of the “Rogozhsky Cemetery” had absolutely clear claims to a certain role in the economy. It was a struggle between financial and industrial Moscow and St. Petersburg. And that's a different story. If we are talking about the Bespopovites, then there were practically no millionaires there - only two or three names. Mostly small figures like the merchant's wife in Serpukhov, with whom Stalin either lived or did not live. At the same time, the non-popovites treated the priests very badly, because the Nikonians are simply enemies, and these are traitors. It’s all very complicated and confusing, and that’s what I’m trying to figure out. And then, for example, Belkovsky comes to Echo of Moscow and starts commenting on my book! Did he understand anything at all?
What did he say?
Well, they say, these cliches are about how the Old Believers could have ended up in communist party, how could such a thing come to mind?
I see, but how do people in the scientific community view your books?
Well, to the Metropolitan (Primate of the Russian Orthodox Old Believer Church - approx. ed.) likes it, the scientists around him are not very friendly. But they, as a rule, study ethnography, local history, and philology. My views on the Old Believers are unusual for them, they are apparently not ready for this. Well, I have my own scientific life- they have their own.
Did you receive any news from Cornelius, or maybe you met?
I visited him several times. The last time he called was when my article “The Kyiv Roots of the Moscow Schism” was published in my Profile; he said that he read it on the plane and liked it. I like Cornelius myself. The contrast with our other leader of Christians is very clearly visible.
Kornily is a simple man who worked at the factory for 30 years. How he lives, I saw for myself, I visited him, modest surroundings, with the exception of some ancient icons, but he lives like every second Russian.
By the way, when Putin met with him, many remembered you.
And by the way, I told Cornelius that this would never happen, but he hoped - and so.
And now how are the Old Believers doing, what’s going on, clans, families, business?
No, that's not the case now. Only merchant shadows remained.
“Being a Finno-Ugric is indecent, but is it decent to pray to Kyiv?”
So, if we rely on your version of events, then since there are no Old Believers, since this mentality is gone, does this mean that there will be no socialism in Russia?
It’s not completely gone, it’s not the morning fog.
OK then. He hasn’t left at all, albeit, but the Old Believers don’t have any money now, you just said that yourself.
You are confusing again. Soviet society is a society of non-popovites. The merchant millionaires who started everything with tsarism needed capitalism, the liberal Western version, like in France and England. There was nothing else there. Let it be national capitalism, although even I now doubt it. Some of them, especially those close to Cornelius, like to say that they behaved like the national bourgeoisie. Only she behaved absolutely not nationally. Okay, but where does this love for Nobel, for the Azov-Don Bank, the representative office of Jewish capital, come from? This was the general plot to push tsarism forward.
Nobel, by the way, gave money to everyone.
With Nobel it’s different, he gave money to everyone. What is important to him is the conflict that he had with the St. Petersburg banks, which are now considered to be “foreign influence” at that time. Although what they wanted to do was the Chinese version. It will take a long time to leave the West. Just like China did. Chinese version of the late 20th century. What they did was because of this the year 17 was forced. It was necessary to remove the group, which I conventionally call the Kokovtsov group (Count Vladimir Kokovtsov, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Russian Empire in 1911-1914 - approx. Nakanune.RU). The factory of the world, a mass of cheap labor, foreign capital - that was the goal of this group. But this path eventually became Chinese, but it would have been ours. Yes, Kokovtsov’s group is bureaucratic, but in China officials also performed miracles.
The Soviet team is popovites. The priestly model is a Western model, private property is sacred, and there is no talk. The main mass, non-church, non-priestly, is what the USSR grew up on. They did it. They raised all their ideas about life, about how it should be arranged, to the level of the state thanks to Stalin.
Why did everything change under Khrushchev? Has the Old Believer mentality disappeared, has individualism and nostalgia for private property appeared?
The Brezhnev group is Ukrainian, it is also called Dnepropetrovsk, but I don’t like that because it narrows it down. This is a different mentality - the Ukrainian front. All sorts of Chernenko, who was born in Krasnoyarsk, Shchelokov, originally from Moldova, are full members of the Ukrainian group. This group is the bearer of a completely different mentality, which has nothing to do with the Great Russian one. He is Ukrainian, kulak. No matter what costume he dresses up in, it’s all the same. The same song is heard from the Ukrainian expanses.
It turns out that the Ukrainians created a split for us in the 17th century, then another one in the 21st century, and they also destroyed the Union. It's all too simple, isn't it?
The southwestern gate is still the gate to the West. The path to the West for Russia is not direct, but through Kyiv. All western expansion came from there. From Vladimir Monomakh and False Dmitry to church affairs and the Brezhnev group. The trajectory is visible, how can it be denied?
And the mentality of Soviet Ukrainians was absolutely no different from Ukrainians from the Russian Empire?
There was no lack of priesthood there. There has always been a kind of “Nikonianism” there. And even after the split, Nikonianism always had support in Ukraine. This is foreign here, it was imposed in the second half of the 17th century. That’s why we don’t talk there about such a phenomenon as priestlessness. Here it is a foreign church. Designed and built specifically. The result is 1917, when the church fell off. But in Ukraine this Church cannot fall away, because it is their family, they cannot refuse it.
Ukraine will eventually receive autocephaly, it seems. How do you feel about the fact that our media pays so much attention to this? In your opinion, there is probably no tragedy in this?
I have a bad attitude. Reproduction of the same thing, second half of the 17th century. Whether the autocephalous Ukrainian church or ours, with all the Legoids, Dashevskys - they still hold a controlling stake there. Russian Orthodox Church. If you remove Ukrainians from our church, it will be some other church, and that church will collapse. What is the centuries-old dispute between the Ukrainian Church and Bohdan Khmelnytsky? From whom can you fuck more, from the Europeans or from us. One part says that we are done with them, they are idiots, rednecks. And they say: “ No, no, no, let's go West" And they said to them: “ No no no. You won’t be able to spin Merkel there like we do here, why do you need her?“They are having these disputes among themselves, but we, a huge country, hundreds of millions of people, who are in these disputes? Let it be without us.
But we are accustomed to the concept that we are the older brother and they are the younger. It turns out that the younger brother controls us.
What kind of big brother are we? When they tell me, they say, under the tsar, everyone was boiled in one cauldron... Well, yes, Karamzin, Tatar roots, Bagration, Georgian - they were all boiled in one cauldron. I say, that’s right, there is only one boiler, but whose boiler is it? Who brought it? Who cooks it? You will fall into this cauldron, you will recognize that Kyiv is the center and beginning of the entire country, and the spiritual beginning is there too. They all worked for this scheme, for those who started cooking this pot. Even now we are not allowed to comprehend it.
Putin just doesn’t seem to be very supportive of this scheme.
No, Putin is just acting according to the old scheme. According to this one, which you designated: “big brother” and everything else.
Okay, so we have understood the depravity of the “Kyiv is the mother of Russian cities” scheme, and what next? We must admit that we are Mordovians, Finno-Ugric peoples...
What’s better - to pray to Kyiv? In your opinion, this means it’s indecent, but standing and praying to Kyiv is decent? They throw mud at us, saying that we are aggressors. We just need to dramatically turn this scheme around, that’s all.
Maybe we can also force them to repent?
Of course, for the genocide of 250 years, which they organized by pushing their church here, which burned people alive. This is not a famine, there are 250 such famines here. There must be an offensive position, but we have only repentance.
As for repentance, by the way, how do you feel about “Royal Days”?
Yes, that's bad.
Is the figure of the last emperor splitting society?
You see, I am always for offensiveness. Why are you praising him? He himself spat on the Church, starting with the canonization of Seraphim of Sarov, which neither Pobedonostsev nor the bishops could allow? He broke them all over his knee. Seraphim of Sarov is a non-church tradition. This is impossible, people venerate this, no one needs this, a real saint, who needs him?
1903-1904, when the heir was born, a schism began, all sorts of fortune-telling Philips and Rasputins appeared, they actually lost the monarch as the head of the Church even then. Now they don’t like to remember this. So let's spin this up. You can dig up so much in the field of “Nicholas II against the Church”! We must act offensively, and not stand and make excuses. They are the ones who have to justify themselves. Seraphim of Sarov did not need to be canonized, he is already a national saint.
“Father kept walking and saying: “That’s right!”
Can the officials hear you?
Come on, who are they listening to anyway?
By the way, aren’t you an Old Believer yourself?
On my father's side I have Bespopovtsy of Fedoseev's consent. I didn't restore it. Local historians told me that my village is Fedoseyevskaya. I then remembered that even when Soviet power, when the church in the village was already abandoned, my father, as he walked by, kept saying: “That’s right!..”
By the way, now the main task find out who the Bespopovites are! Otherwise we are throwing around the term.
Didn’t Soviet ethnography develop all this?
No, they developed it in an ethnographic manner. But who are they in terms of meaning, are they Christians or not? It is clear that some are not Christians. In a completely unexpected way, something becomes clear through Russian epics, the texts of which were published in the middle of the 19th century. There is absolutely Christian terminology, Christian characters, but when you dive into it, you see that absolutely non-Christian things are expressed in the language of Christianity, to which Christianity has nothing to do with at all. I would like to pull this thread and follow it, go...
The Orthodox will quickly tell you where this will lead you.
Yeah, they will say, to obscurantism ( laughs).
***
Interview with Alexander Pyzhikov comments Priest John Sevastyanov, rector of the Church of the Intercession Holy Mother of God in Rostov-on-Don.
***
The history of the Old Believers and their individual agreements is one of the most poorly studied aspects of Russian history. Huge historical layers of the life of the Old Believers are completely unexplored and uninterpreted. For example, such an important question as the statistics of the Old Believers has different variations that differ from each other several times. The Old Believers themselves did not know the answer to this question. (Bogatenkov) said so: they say, we cannot give accurate information about the number of our priests and laity, we do not know how many there are, even approximately. Therefore, no matter what page of the historical chronicle of the Old Believers modern researchers touch, they all conceal, if not sensations, then serious scientific discoveries. This concerns the inner life of the Old Believers and their church organization, and the relationship between consents, and issues of internal consolidation, and community structure, and business and social ethics, and external relationships of the zealots of the old faith with the state, with the Russian Church, with the surrounding society. All these aspects can reveal to a conscientious researcher a lot of interesting and hitherto unknown historical information.
In particular, the attitude of Old Believers to social upheavals in Russia, to the revolutionary movement, the participation of Old Believers in these processes is a very interesting and little-studied topic that gives rise to many questions. To what extent did the Old Believers share socialist and liberal ideas at the beginning of the 20th century? Did the Old Believers take an active part in revolutionary movement? If so, what part of the Old Believer population took part in this? How does this compare with the number of participants from other faiths in Russia? Which Old Believer consents were more active in this activity? Etc. and so on. Now there are no scientific research, which would provide unambiguous and reasoned answers to emerging questions. And in this situation, these answers cannot be predetermined by any unfounded statements. No matter how much the modern reader might want it, there is no point in indiscriminately anticipating the results of scientific research.
Although in this situation the opposite view is quite acceptable. Namely, while academic history cannot provide answers to questions of interest to society, any hypotheses may have a right to exist. For example, the hypothesis expressed by Mr. Pyzhikov about the universal revolutionary spirit of the Fedoseev Old Believers. As a working hypothesis, this statement has a right to exist. Moreover, this is not a new observation. Herzen already expressed his opinion about the revolutionary predisposition of the Old Believers. And it should be recognized that this version has some connotations with the idea of \u200b\u200bthe life of the Fedoseev Old Believers. Another question is, what is this hypothesis based on? But that's a completely different conversation. If this statement about the revolutionary activity of the millions of Old Believers is based on one crumpled piece of paper and the statement of some clerk from the district committee, then, to put it mildly, it does not deserve trust. If this hypothesis does not take into account the opposing facts that the Old Believers, as a religious group, were for the most part far from politics, that the Fedoseevites were not noticed in attempts to create their own party before the revolution, that the Old Believers had extremely small representation in the State Duma, which generally it did not even correspond in any way to their official number in the Empire, estimated at 2.2 million people, that none of the Old Believer delegates were elected to the Constituent Assembly - if these and similar facts are not taken into account, if there are no statistical observations and research, then treat these now statements as defining axioms are not worth it.
With all this, such versions are very useful in the development of historical science. They awaken research thought, force people to look for answers to the questions posed, give people the opportunity to reflect on their own history, on current events, look for historical analogies and confirmations, evaluate the truth or absurdity of statements. Such thinking people become more adequate and responsible. And if some absurd and unfounded hypotheses serve to awaken the adequacy and responsibility of the nation, then let there be more such hypotheses.
Please don't think badly of me
I myself am a great power, a chauvinist, and generally a supporter of large states and countries. Well, at least because the more people there are, the simpler, easier, and even better life is. It’s not for nothing that a proverb has taught since ancient Russian times: “It’s easier to beat a dad in a bunch.”
Therefore, I read with pleasure all sorts of exposers of historical falsifications (well, even children know that the Judeo-Masons and the Germans distorted our history in order to enslave)
But this titan of thought eclipsed everyone
Pyzhikov, Alexander Vladimirovich
Russian historian and statesman,
specialist in the history of Russia of the 20th century. Doctor of Historical Sciences.
Pyzhikov with bags, a lovely stranger and Spitsyn on the arm
.Spitsyn, Evgeny Yuryevich - also a historian, and also a titan of thought, wrote a five-volume (!!!) " Full course history of Russia for teachers” Since the enemies of Russia refused to print this work, I published it myself, with money from sponsors.
He walks on them and conducts further research. (damn! I’m so jealous, I want that too)
...
They are both distinguished by their unclouded views. But Pyzhikov, in my opinion, is cooler.
His searching mind fell on many topics, among which the following stand out: -
And from here on in more detail. Treatise has a dramatic title, until the blood in the veins cools: - “Polish-Ukrainian conspiracy in Russian history”
Doctor of Historical Sciences Alexander Pyzhikov talks about his new book “Slavic Rift”. What the Kiev region brought to Russia in a meaningful, ideological, state and religious sense. What position did the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth occupy in the international market, and how Ivan the Terrible violated the plans of the Polish-Lithuanian elite. Who did the Romanovs rely on when they came to power? Why is it so important to reclaim our true history?
Turns out!
It’s not the Jews who are to blame for everything, nor the stone masons, nor even the little damned one...
And the Polish-Ukrainian Great Conspiracy to Seize Power in Russia
Which (Attention!) completed successfully
And now we live under the Polish-Ukrainian yoke, enslaved to the very throat, and this is the reason for all our troubles (and not from women, as some people think)
What should we do now? - you ask (I asked)
There is a recipe! - Pyzhikov responds
The Russian Orthodox Church, as the main instrument of the conspiracy, should be renamed from Russian to Ukrainian
Ukraine should be annexed to Poland, since they are one and the same people
The President should be chosen from among the Old Believers, because only they are not traitors
Well, how will we live after this!
We're sick of it, honestly!
Has my mind gone completely crazy, or what? At what point did Ukrainians become non-Russians?
With the latest political upheavals, some have already begun to forget that Ukrainians are also Russians
Come on! Even during the times of Soviet internationalism, this fact, although it was not emphasized, was not hushed up either.
Ukrainians, like Belarusians, like Russians themselves, are one of the three big Russian peoples
United common origin (Ancient Rus'), language (Old Slavic) and territory of residence.
Last year, a family from Chernigov moved to Krasnodar. Over the course of a year, everyone has successfully forgotten the Ukrainian language, fully adapted to life and also criticizes local customs - no one can distinguish them from ordinary visitors from other regions of Russia. Both children study at school, switched to Russian languages quite easily, and, even if you wanted to, you can’t tell them apart from others.
Because this doesn’t happen to our own people. Poles, even completely Russified, even in the third generation, are different. But Ukrainians do not.
...
And therefore, to want them to separate from us and join some Poles
Only a fool or a bastard can (well, or not the last one, but still a bastard)
Alexander Vladimirovich Pyzhikov (November 27, 1965, Ramenskoye, Moscow region, RSFSR, USSR - September 17, 2019, Moscow, Russia) is a Russian historian and statesman, a specialist in the history of Russia of the 50-60s of the XX century. Doctor of Historical Sciences.
In 1989 he graduated from the history department of the Moscow Regional Pedagogical Institute named after N.K. Krupskaya.
In 1993, he was director of the center for socio-political programs of the Youth for Russia Foundation in Ramenskoye.
In December 1993, he ran for the State Duma of the Russian Federation on the list of the electoral association “Future of Russia - New Names”, but received 1.25% of the votes and was not elected. In 1995, he ran as a candidate for the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation of the second convocation in the Kurgan region on the list of the electoral bloc “Ivan Rybkin Bloc”, but was not elected.
Since 1994 - director of the information and analytical center of the Central Committee of the Russian Youth Union.
He was deputy director of the Institute of Socio-Political Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
In 1998, he defended his dissertation for the degree of Candidate of Historical Sciences on the topic “Socio-political development of Soviet society in 1953-1964.” (specialty 07.00.02 - “domestic history”).
In 1999, he defended his dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Historical Sciences on the topic “Historical experience of political reform of Soviet society in the 50s and 60s” (specialty 07.00.02 - “domestic history”).
In 2000-2003, Assistant to the Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation M.M. Kasyanova.
From June 5, 2003 to June 18, 2004 - Deputy Minister of Education Russian Federation. In this position, he dealt with issues of quality control of education and state certification in educational institutions of all types and types.
Books (6)
Facets of the Russian schism. Notes on our history from the 17th century to 1917
The book presents a view of Russian history through the prism of the Russian religious schism.
The upheavals that occurred in Russia and caused by church reforms in the mid-17th century had a great influence on the development of the country in the next two centuries. The complex processes that took place then left their mark on the entire social fabric Russian society. It is in the confessional identity that the origins of the key events in our history associated with the collapse at the beginning of the 20th century lie Russian Empire in her Nikonian guise.
The roots of Stalin's Bolshevism
Much has been written about the revolution and Stalin, but in this work the author offers a new look at our history.
The book is based on a look at the differences between Leninist and Stalinist Bolshevism. These two movements had different origins, social bases, and ideological aspirations. It would not be an exaggeration to say that they were united only by an external “sign” and a set of common slogans, which largely limits their similarity. Understanding this circumstance opens up new horizons not only from a scientific but also from a practical point of view. Allows you to more deeply comprehend the turbulent events of the domestic 20th century. The book will be of interest to everyone who cares about the history of their country.
St. Petersburg - Moscow. Fight for Russia
For a long time, almost until October 1917, the ideas of St. Petersburg residents and Muscovites about the modernization of Russia were very different. St. Petersburg carried out its own path, which was implemented by the state elite and the capital's business group, and the role of opponent was played by the Moscow merchants and the Kadet Party, guided by completely different ideological priorities.
What is the root of the eternal confrontation between the two great cities of Russia - St. Petersburg and Moscow? Why is the historical canvas of our common past filled with episodes of their confrontation, conflict and competition?
Alexander Pyzhikov, Doctor of Historical Sciences, author of the books “The Birth of a “Superpower”: the USSR in the First Post-War Years”, “The Khrushchev Thaw”, “The Facets of the Russian Schism”, gives readers the opportunity to take a fresh look at many key points and significant milestones Russian history.
The Birth of a Superpower: 1945-1953
The book discusses the most important stage history of Soviet society - the period 1945-1953. Analyzing various aspects of external and domestic policy USSR, the authors attempt a comprehensive assessment of post-war Soviet society.
The study is based on unique archival documents, many of which are included in scientific circulation first. A wide source base made it possible to clarify a number of issues international politics country, the functioning of party-state power, ideological system, etc.
Slavic fault. Ukrainian-Polish yoke in Russia
Why is Kyiv and the southwestern principalities considered to be the center of all Russian history? By whose will is the no less ancient North (Novgorod, Pskov, Smolensk, Ryazan) or the Volga region considered second-class?
This book shows with merciless clarity why the entire Russian history is presented exclusively from pro-Western, South Slavic and Polish positions. The facts collected here indicate that we are not talking about a coincidence of circumstances, but about the purposeful centuries-long occupation of Russia, about the total spiritual and religious dictate of the Polonized public, skillfully covering up its dominance. It was its representatives, who became the main support of the Romanov throne, who constructed the state-religious framework, which to this day blocks the memory of our population. Various Germans and others, who abundantly poured into the elite since the time of Peter I, only corrected the building that was not erected by them.
This book will be a revelation for many, since the proposed historical perspective is too unusual.
“Thaw”... This is how the stage of development of our country associated with the name of N. S. Khrushchev is characterized.
In the 60s of our century, this time attracted special attention from historians. Evaluation of this period national history today is largely based on the works of researchers and publicists of the late 80s and early 90s of the 20th century. How consistent are the views of these years with the objective processes taking place in the first post-Stalin decade? Do we correctly understand the meaning and place of Khrushchev’s reforms in our history?
This book attempts to answer these questions.
Reader comments
Victor/ 02/08/2020 Eternal Glory to Alexander Vladimirovich. And the banner must be raised and held firmly
Elena/ 12.12.2019 The Great Man left us at the height of his creative and exploratory life. We will never know about how many valuable discoveries. A terrible blow to Russian science. The loss is irreparable.
Alexander Vladimirovich put me on the rails of my family, opened the Russian world to me, showed me in which direction to move, what to value, and what to protect myself from forever. He gave me wings, he gave me courage. A friend was nearby, and so... I didn’t have time to thank Alexander for the wonderful books. I thought, I’ll sit down, concentrate and write a letter of gratitude. I didn't write. (When will we learn to be grateful here and now!) My heart cannot come to terms with the severe loss.
My condolences to the family. Surrounded by caring relatives, prominent scientist Alexander Pyzhikov was born.
May his memory be blessed.
Kyiv
Olga/ 11/15/2019 I literally read his first lecture and realized that this was the Spark of Truth. I was ignited by him... then I look further, and there is the news of his death. Well, it can't be like that, when will it end? As soon as an outlet for the soul appears, there is only one end. Condolences for the pain and loss....
Elena/ 10.20.2019 Pyzhikov is a light in the darkness of history. It’s a pity that I didn’t have time to publish the planned books. I read and listen and write
I'm telling the truth. I am very grateful to him.
Alna/ 10/19/2019 The pain of loss! I cried as if for my own family! I hope that there will be young people who will name their son in his honor, Alexander!
Vyacheslav/ 10/18/2019 I agree with everything written above. The death of such a bright person hurts. Question. Who will raise his banner? Who will continue what they started.
KONSTANTIN ALEKSEENKO/ 09.29.2019 A great, wise and honest man with a great Russian Soul has left us. Glory to Alexander Vladimirovich.
Lyudmila/ 09.23.2019 He revealed too deeply and truthfully the secrets of those who didn’t like it.. I don’t believe that they didn’t help them leave.. grief.. Bright Memory to a Bright Man..
Marina Shubina/ 09/19/2019 The trembling of HIS WISE HEART resounds in our SOULs and we say YES! Truth, Ancestors, Love, LIFE! Is it possible to leave Life? The thrill of Life is eternal as long as we remember and love and think with our hearts.
Russian Stairs/ 09.19.2019 Alexander Pyzhikov.
Cute, plump with the eyes of a kind child...
What a flash!
Brighter than the Chelyabinsk meteorite.
His death is not accidental in any sense.
It just so happens that only she illuminates the Truth in such a way that it hurts the eyes.
On the night of Alexander’s death, I had a correspondence with Khasai Aliyev about him.
Like, they need to cooperate. They say they have the same idea about the unity of all peoples who are separated for some reason. It doesn’t matter that the contact failed at once. Doesn't matter!
***
Now for sure - this is not important.
To the delight of his enemies or their grief, he entered the Other World, having managed to light a torch in the darkness of lies.
What a pity...
I never thought that someone from a computer would touch my heart so much...
***
I feel it as a personal loss.
Without hesitation, I put him on a par with Seraphim of Sarov.
There is no need to waste letters expounding his works.
Listen for yourself and let, finally, pain and happiness become simultaneous.
Let our Slavic heart, hardened, become wet and break from sadness and Truth.
Loading...