Cases of verbal aggression in the media. The manifestation of verbal aggression in modern print media

THE RUSSIAN NATION and the national identity of the RUSSIAN people are spiritual aspects.

“The breakdown of ethnogenesis is a period when, after an energy or passionary overheating, the system goes towards simplification. Sincere patriots are not enough to maintain it, and egoists and selfish people leave the cause that their fathers and grandfathers served. They strive to live for themselves at the expense of the wealth accumulated by their ancestors and, at the end of an era, they lose it and their lives and their offspring, to whom they leave only the hopelessness of historical fate as a legacy.

L.N. Gumilyov

I was prompted to write this work by the helpless, and for some categories of people in Russia even hopeless, state of national self-consciousness among Russians, now scattered all over the planet. In it, I will try to answer a number of questions that have been tormenting politicians, historians, sociologists, philosophers and those who simply talk about people's lives for more than a century.

What is NATIONALITY?

What is a NATION?

What is PEOPLE?

Vladimir Dal gave the following definition: NATION - people, in a broad sense, language, tribe, tribe; people who speak the same common language. PEOPLE - people born in a certain space; language, tribe; people who speak the same language.

A later definition of a nation in Ozhegov's dictionary is as follows: NATION - A historically established, stable community of people, formed in the process of forming a community of their territory, economic ties, literary language, cultural characteristics and spiritual appearance; PEOPLE - the population of the state, the inhabitants of the country.

The philosophical dictionary of Marxist-Leninist philosophy defines these concepts as follows: NATION (from Latin people) - a historically established form of community of people. A NATION is characterized primarily by the commonality of the material conditions of life: territory and economic life; common language, well-known features of the national character, manifested in the national identity of its culture. A NATION is a broader form of community than the nationality, which develops with the emergence and formation of the capitalist formation. The economic basis for the emergence of the NATION was the elimination of feudal fragmentation, the strengthening of economic ties between individual regions within the country, the unification of local markets into a national one; PEOPLE - in the usual sense - the population of the state, country; in the strict scientific sense, it is a historically changing community of people, including that part, those strata, those classes of the population who, by their objective position, are capable of jointly participating in solving the problems of the progressive, revolutionary development of a given country in a given period. (I will not give here the definition of “a new community - the Soviet people”, the meaninglessness of which is obvious to everyone today). The interpretation of the philosophical dictionary in full repeats the conclusions made by I.V. Stalin in his article "Marxism and the National Question" back in 1913. Over all subsequent years, the dogmatists from Marxism-Leninism did not budge in understanding and developing the problems of the NATION and its self-consciousness.

And, finally, the latest definition in the historical and ethnographic reference book “Peoples of the World”: “... The term “PEOPLE” means a stable intergenerational community of people historically established in a certain territory, possessing common, relatively stable features of culture (including language) and psyche , as well as self-consciousness, that is, the consciousness of its unity and difference from all other similar communities. In this meaning, the term “ethnos” has been increasingly used in science lately. “... For the next type of ethnos of the NATION, as well as for the tribe, relative cultural homogeneity is characteristic, however, it is based on a basis other than that of the tribe and is conditioned primarily turn intensification of socio-economic and cultural ties. This intensification leads to a gradual smoothing of local linguistic and cultural differences.”

Such extensive quotations are given here not to confuse the respected public, but to show how inaccurate and vague the terms and concepts that everyone uses today. That is why, before starting a dialogue, it is necessary to define key concepts. Political speculation using concepts NATION, NATIONALITY, PEOPLE and ETHNOS have reached their apogee in the modern world. Attempts by politicians to unite the incompatible and to separate the single organism of the nation and people entail an ecological catastrophe on a larger scale than the pollution of rivers and seas, deforestation and air poisoning. The violent destruction of ethnic systems leads to the destruction of established ties and cultures, the emergence of “ethnic chimeras”, according to the definition of L.N. Gumilyov, ultimately, will lead to the self-destruction of mankind. The most recent example of the political engagement of the definition of the NATION can be found in the work of P. Khomyakov “NATIONAL PROGRESSISM. Theory and ideology of national survival and development of Russia”:

“A set of PERSONALITIES who have linked the interests of their development and their self-realization (creative, economic, political, etc.) with a certain type (or subtype) of civilization, which in turn is associated with a certain language and which develops with the support of a particular state , form not a nationality, ethnic group and etc., but a NATION."

Does anyone understand what is being said in the above quote? Nevertheless, the author further tries to formulate a “theory of national survival”, although it is not very clear for which nation. An attempt to drag the Russian nation by the ears to this definition is completely inappropriate. The definition of a nation outside the historical and social processes in society hardly deserves further discussion, but it serves as a vivid example of how various political forces use the same term, sometimes putting diametrically opposite meanings into it. This is what the Bolsheviks did at the beginning of this century. A noteworthy example is from the classics of Marxism-Leninism. In "Critical Notes on the National Question" V.I. Ulyanov (Lenin) wrote:

“The progressive awakening of the masses (“democrats” of all times and peoples, in general, think in “mass” categories - A.Ya.Ch.) from feudal hibernation, their struggle against any national oppression, for the sovereignty of the people, for the sovereignty of the nation. Hence the unconditional obligation for a Marxist to uphold the most resolute and most consistent democracy in all parts of the national question.

Upon careful reading of this paragraph, all its meaninglessness will become apparent to any reader. The presented phrase consists entirely of vague concepts. What is a "mass awakening" and why is it "progressive"? If we understand the war of one part of the population of a given territory against another, under the guise of demagogy about national independence and national dignity, for progress, then it is necessary to recognize the wars in the Middle East, Serbia, Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Chechnya as progressive, and humanity must cultivate them and cherish. In the Middle East - until the destruction of the last Jew, because without the support of the United States and European states, they simply cannot survive there; in Chechnya - to the last Chechen, since they have no possibility of defeating Russia in the war; in the Balkans - until the Orthodox Serbs, the Catholic Serbs and the Muslim Serbs do not fight until the complete destruction of one of the other two confessions and thus "progress" will not triumph. Another vague concept is that of "national oppression." However, V.I. Lenin in a number of works tries to give him some interpretations, but each time these interpretations are so vague and indefinite in relation to different nations that I have not been able to single out a clear definition. “Sovereignty of the people” is generally from the realm of fantasy. Well, the “sovereignty of the nation,” even that, according to the Stalinist formulation, the Bolsheviks always interpreted in a way that was beneficial to them “according to specific historical and political conditions.” It was on this senselessness that the national policy of the Bolsheviks and the CPSU was built, which brought innumerable troubles to Russia. As Ivan Alexandrovich Ilyin noted, a communist is brought up on deductive thinking, which is "the easiest, most empty, abstract, dead and passive." “Deduction knows everything in advance: it builds a system of arbitrary concepts, proclaims the “laws” that own these concepts, and tries to impose these concepts, “laws” and formulas - on a living person and God's world.

Dogmatists from the CPSU, headed by Gorbachev, during perestroika again tried to implement the ideas of Ilyich in life, what came of it, we see with our own eyes. The united body of the NATION has been divided, and wars are going on all over the periphery.

Based on the definitions that exist in Russian science after the article by I.V. Stalin in 1913 “Marxism and the national question”, then large groups of the population of the planet and Russia are neither peoples, nor even nations. The peoples of the Caucasus, the Far East and Siberia, Jews and Gypsies - this is a far from complete list of Russian residents who do not fall under the above definitions, but, nevertheless, are aware of their unity, their identity and difference from other ethnic groups living in the same territory. The clearest example is the Jews. Having neither a common territory, nor a common language, nor a common culture, and, finally, differing even in race, nevertheless, a Jew, as they say, "and in Africa - a Jew."

Arguing with O. Bauer, I.V. Stalin wrote: “Bauer speaks of the Jews as a nation, although “they do not have a common language at all” (See O. Bauer, “The National Question and Social Democracy”); But what kind of “community of fate” and national connection can we talk about, for example, among Georgian, Dagestan, Russian and American Jews, completely cut off from each other, living in different territories and speaking different languages? The mentioned Jews, no doubt, live a common economic and political life with Georgians, Dagestanis, Russians and Americans, in a common cultural atmosphere with them; this cannot but impose its stamp on their national character; if they have anything in common, it is religion, a common origin, and some vestiges of a national character. All this is certain. But how can one seriously say that ossified religious rites and weathered psychological remnants influence the “fate” of the Jews mentioned more than the living socio-economic and cultural environment surrounding them? But only under such an assumption can one speak of the Jews in general as a single nation.”

How seriously the “common sense” of Joseph Vissarionovich let him down. Even during his lifetime, after only 32 years, he had to become a participant in the creation of the Jewish national state of Israel, instead of the constitution of which the Torah was registered. O. Bauer turned out to be more far-sighted in this matter than I.V. Stalin. Another similar example is the gypsies. And in India, and in Africa, and in Russia, they are a pronounced community that has common features, aware of themselves as gypsies and different from the peoples among whom they live. Moreover, they have their own aristocracy, and in early January 1996 in Bucharest they celebrated the 60th anniversary of their king, on whose head a crown of pure gold flaunted during the celebrations.

Today in Russia the national question is on the agenda in full and in all its painful manifestations. Society, if it wants to live in the future without upheavals and wars, needs to realize one thing, that in Russia today there is only one question - RUSSIAN QUESTION . Without its permission, it is impossible to solve the problems of any people in the territory of the former USSR. The erroneous national policy of the communist rulers for seventy-five years, the creation of artificial nations, such as “Karachay-Circassians”, “Kabardino-Balkars”, “Yakuts”, “Buryat-Mongols”, “Yamal-Nenets”, “Ukrainians”, “ Belarusians”, “Khanto-Mansi”, “Chechen-Ingush”, etc. led to amazing metamorphoses. Instead of the long-awaited single “Soviet nation” (“Soviet people as a social community of people”), we got a dismembered country, instead of friendship of peoples - the vicious Russophobia of all border governments and central television and radio, instead of centuries-old attraction to the Russian people - complete delimitation and repulsion. All this is the result of a long-term war with "Great Russian chauvinism", the development of "national self-awareness of backward peoples" and "equalization in the economic development of the outskirts and the center." The well-being of Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Transcaucasia, and the republics of Central Asia was built at the expense of the well-being of central Russia, the Urals, Siberia and the industrially developed regions of Ukraine and Belarus.

“... The national question in the Caucasus,” wrote I.V. Stalin, - can only be resolved in the spirit of involving the belated (Where are the belated? In general, Marxists consider the life of the people as some kind of race with obstacles without a clearly defined finish line. - A.Ya.Ch.) nations and nationalities into the common channel of higher culture . (It is clear that dividing culture into higher and lower is senseless in itself, but we will leave that to the author's conscience.) Only such a solution can be progressive and acceptable to social democracy. The regional autonomy of the Caucasus is acceptable because it draws belated nations into a common cultural development, it helps them to hatch out of the shell of small-national isolation, it pushes them forward and facilitates their access to the benefits of a higher culture.”

Here it is necessary to pay attention to the following: since the peoples of the Caucasus, the Russian North and many nomadic peoples of Russia lived under feudal relations, according to Marxist ideology they were not nations. Nevertheless, I.V. Stalin wrote about “belated nations” and “petty-national isolation” of those who are not even a nation. There is confusion in concepts and terminology. Thanks to the short-sighted policy of the CPSU, the Russian people were turned into hostages of the communist system, forced to develop industry, agriculture, mining and educate the outlying peoples to the detriment of the development of Central Russia, Siberia, the Far East - and the Russian North.

“Our business is to fight against the dominant, Black-Hundred and bourgeois national culture of the Great Russians, developing exclusively in an international spirit and in the closest alliance with the workers of other countries those rudiments that are also present in our history of the democratic and working-class movement,” wrote V.I. Lenin. And they fought, sparing neither strength nor means. This struggle continues to this day. Today, when the need for Russians has disappeared, they have become outcasts on the land, which they poured abundantly with their sweat and blood, where they created modern industries and built cities. Millions of Russians, forced migrants from the outskirts, and those who have not yet been able to leave their places of temporary residence, bear in themselves an offended sense of national dignity. And tomorrow it is ready to explode with pogroms in the Russian regions of Russia, and then strike like a boomerang at the peoples of the outskirts.

To treat the social organism of our society, first of all, it is necessary to make a diagnosis. To do this, we define what unites people in NATIONALITY. It should be noted that NATION and NATIONALITY are two completely different concepts. basis for bringing people together NATIONALITY is ethnic kinship and spiritual essence, that is, his Faith. The Slavic tribes that inhabited Europe from the shores of the Mediterranean Sea to the shores of the Baltic, even in the first centuries of our era had gods common to all Slavs and spoke a language understandable to all Slavs. Crowds of nomads who poured into the territory of the Slavs dismembered the single organism of the settled Slavic civilization, made it difficult, and sometimes completely stopped inter-Slavic contacts. The role of the common Slavic gods began to diminish and tribal gods came to the fore, which was quite natural, since each tribe survived on its own. In the fifth century, an alliance of tribes arose on the territory of Russia, the so-called state of the Ants, which arose in order to protect against nomadic raids. One of the monuments of this association is the so-called “serpent ramparts” on the territory of modern Ukraine. But this alliance proved fragile. Tribal gods deprived of a strict hierarchy were constantly at enmity with each other, which led to the collapse of the union. As a result, our ancestors become dependent on the Khazar Khaganate and pay tribute to him until the victories of Prince Svyatoslav. The misfortune that befell the Slavs is very figuratively expressed in the epic about Svyatogor and Ilya Muromets. The pagan hero Svyatogor tried to test his strength and lay down in the coffin. But the lid of the coffin grew and even two heroes could not lift it. So the pagan faith of the Slavs in the person of Svyatogor ceased to fulfill its protective and protective functions of its people, and the Orthodox hero Ilya Muromets went to serve the Orthodox Prince Vladimir "Red Sun". Prince Vladimir's attempt to create a single Slavic state through a new hierarchy of tribal gods was unsuccessful. The Slavic gods did not find a "common language". The faith of the Slavs ceased to perform protective functions, both spiritually (preserving the language, traditions and knowledge) and materially (the unity and independence of the people). Internal and external reasons (the presence of a powerful Orthodox state in the south of Russia and the aggressive policy of Catholic Rome), the existence of a large Orthodox community in Kyiv forced Prince Vladimir to accept Christianity. Since that time, the Russian NATIONALITY or RUSSIAN PEOPLE from all the peoples and tribes that fell under the influence of Kievan Rus, and then Muscovy.

“The essence of any nationality lies in its substance. Substance is that imperishable and eternal in the spirit of the people, which, without changing itself, endures all changes, and passes through all the phases of historical development whole and unharmed. This is the seed in which every possibility of future development lies, - wrote V.G. Belinsky.

Exactly Orthodox faith became the grain from which the ears of Russian NATIONALITY from Slavic and other tribes scattered over the vast territories of Europe. For a thousand years, the Russian Orthodox Church has shaped the Russian people and has been the spiritual and moral core of the Russian state.

“One great treasure was entrusted to our nation,” wrote Konstantin Leontiev back in 1880, “strict and unswerving Church Orthodoxy; but our best minds do not want to simply “humble themselves” before him, before his “exceptionalism” and before that seeming dryness that always blows on romantically educated souls from everything that is established, correct and firm. They prefer to “reconcile themselves” to the teachings of anti-national eudemonism (1*), in which there is nothing even new in relation to Europe.”

Having destroyed the moral core, the communists created an unscrupulous society in which bare practicality and expediency ruled the ball. Intergenerational communication within nationalities was destroyed. Fathers and distant ancestors have ceased to be an example and a role model for future generations. The very concept of “spiritual doing” of a person was destroyed. Power, not sanctified by God, instead of a burden and service, turned into an element of prestige and a means of obtaining material wealth. That is why today those who, on duty, were to become a brake in the immoral pursuit of the “golden calf” rushed to enrich themselves. And the current democrats are just the Bolsheviks of our days, for whom there is no Fatherland, but there is only its own selfish and political interest, which by and large is one and the same. History gives a sufficient number of examples when only the religion of a particular people allowed it to maintain its self-consciousness and preserve its nationality. Suffice it to recall the Bulgarians languishing under the Turkish yoke for five hundred years. And examples of how people belonging to the same ethnic group destroy each other just because they pray to God in different ways? Orthodox Serbs, Catholic Serbs (Croats) and Muslim Serbs today share what belongs to them all together by right, i.e. what cannot be separated, Sunni Arabs and Shia Arabs (Iran and Iraq), Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland, and such examples can be given endlessly. To ignore the spiritual principle in determining the development strategy of a multi-confessional country means dooming it to failure in advance. Only by maintaining and developing the spiritual bonds of various nationalities, its further development and well-being is possible. Today, on the example of current events in Russia, it is clearly seen that a person who is Russian by blood, but who is outside the framework of the Russian Orthodox faith - not Russian . The population, deprived of faith, and without God there is no Conscience in the soul, supports projects and rulers that destroy them, as Hitler dreamed about it. We are still reaping the fruits of the idiocy of the Great French Revolution, and its basic postulate: "Every people (nation) have the right to their own statehood, and only nation-states are justified." This “romanticism” of the French Freemasons of the middle of the 18th century, which in the 19th century became the religion of the Social Democrats, is still shared by socialists and communists of all trends. More than 250 years of human history have taught them nothing. (“Well preserved, comrades!”). They are still trying to rebuild the world on the basis of the utopias of the last century, rolling the ever-crushing rink of “progressive development” in front of them.

“Democratic and liberal progress believes more in the forced and gradual reformation of the whole of humanity than in the moral strength of the individual. Thinkers and moralists like the author of The Karamazovs apparently hope more for the human heart than for the reorganization of societies. Christianity, on the other hand, does not absolutely believe in either one or the other - that is, neither in the best autonomous morality of the individual, nor in the mind of a collective humanity, which must sooner or later create a paradise on earth ... ... Correctly understood, not deceiving With unfounded hopes, realism must, sooner or later, give up the dream of earthly prosperity and the search for the ideal of moral truth in the depths of humanity itself” (K. Leontiev).

Speaking in today's language of system analysis, K. Leontiev thought that it is impossible to create a sufficiently complete system of criteria for evaluating the behavior of a complex system, being inside this system. To fully and reliably describe the behavior of a complex system, it is necessary to go beyond its limits. That is why the idea of ​​God is so relevant to mankind.

“Whoever has a living experience of spiritual being, knows beyond all abstract speculation with direct self-evidence that being is not exhausted by its logically determinable objective content, but has another dimension in depth, which goes beyond the limits of everything logically comprehensible and reveals to us its inner incomprehensibility” (S .L.Frank, “Incomprehensible”).

NATIONALITY

“We're talking about a 'people' or a 'nation'. But, obviously, not geographical borders, not territory - a sign that distinguishes this "people" from other peoples. ... The naive and completely unhistorical identification of the people with territory and statehood, and the importance was attached to one or the other, led to equally absurd and disastrous consequences in the era of the Congress of Vienna and in the era of the Versailles Peace. "Self-determination of nationalities" - what an absurd, wild principle, when they do not realize what "nationality" is. Indeed, this principle in such a vague form is no less absurd than the principle of the International. It is understandable - not understanding what constitutes a historical individuality, the era in everything and everywhere will not understand this. If a people cannot be defined by the boundaries of the territory it occupies, or by the part of it that embraces it, sometimes also by parts of other peoples, by statehood, it cannot be defined with the help of biological and anthropological features. By blood, both Alexander III and Nicholas II are more Germans than Russians and Russian “nature”, they cannot be saved by the dubious nature of hypotheses about adultery in the reigning Russian family and the sin of Mother Catherine. But both in appearance (!), and in character, both are typically Russian people. The national Russian traits are both the excessive delicacy and slyness associated with it, and the indifference and passive resignation to fate in Nicholas II. One can say that he is a bad Russian type, roughly corresponding to the type of an intellectual of the late 19th - early 20th century, but one cannot help but see him as a Russian person. Half-brothers, half-brothers, sons of a Russian father and a German mother, one is a typical Russian person, living and thinking in Russian, a Russian patriot and a German-eater, the other is an equally bright representative of the German people. (In this phrase, L.P. Karsavin speaks of Alexander III and his brother, Grand Duke Vladimir Alexandrovich, president of the Academy of Arts.) Moreover, how many purebred Germans became genuine Russian statesmen, patriots and Russian people, and how many native Russian people were Germanized or Frenchized to the complete loss of any national traits! Neither territory, nor state affiliation, nor blood and anthropological type, nor way of life, nor even language in themselves are signs that distinguish a representative of one nation from a representative of another. However, nationality in any of these and other signs not listed by us sometimes turns out to be in one, more often in many. And it is expressed not in the pure fact of citizenship, origin or way of life, but in the special quality of this fact. Obviously, we must look for the principle constituting nationality in its special, difficult-to-define qualitative difference, which can be individualized in various manifestations.

This is how L.P. Karsavin wrote in his work “Philosophy of History” when defining “collective historical individuality” such as “nationality”. Indeed, let's look at a person of German, Tatar or other origin, who is baptized in the Russian Orthodox Church, observes all its prescriptions and sacredly honors "ALL SAINTS SHINE IN RUSSIA". Who is he really if for him saints Boris and Gleb, Metropolitan Hilarion, Alexander Nevsky, Dmitry Donskoy, John of Krondstadt, Seraphim of Sarov and many other prayer books and intercessors before the Lord. What is in this man German, if he honors the victory of Alexander Nevsky, and not the dogs-knights, what is Tatar in him, if Dmitry Donskoy is a saint for him - except perhaps the guise. But the outer shell is far from the person himself and cannot testify to his thoughts, actions and behavior in society.

Analyzing the ethnic history of Iran, more precisely, the vicissitudes of the Parthian-Persian ethno-social system and its phases, L.N. Gumilyov actually showed the change of ethnic groups as a change of religious systems, because. each ethnic group had its own dominant religion.

“The ancient Persians,” wrote L.N. himself to Turan. Iran and Turan were inhabited by closely related Aryan tribes. They were separated not by race or language, but by RELIGION (highlighted by me - A.Ya.Ch.). The initiative to divide the ancient Aryan cultural integrity is attributed to the prophet Zarathustra, who lived in the 6th century. BC. and preaching monotheism, the veneration of Ahuramazda (“the wise lord”) instead of the pantheon of the Aryan gods - the devas, the same ones that the Hellenes placed on Olympus, and the Germans - in Valhalla. Assistants of Ahuramazda - akhuras are equivalent to the Hellenic giants and Indian asuras - the enemies of the devas. Mythology and cosmogony in the new confession turned out to be turned 180 degrees.

The first 200 years of the Parthian-Persian ethno-social system (250-53 BC) was a phase of ethnic upsurge. (This period corresponds to the veneration of the Aryan gods - A.Ya.Ch.)

The second period - the Akmatic phase (50 BC - 224 AD) - was characterized by a variety of cultural influences, dynastic wars and the rejection of Hellenism for Zoroastrianism.

In 224, one of the seven princes, Artashir of Pars, a descendant of the Achaemenids, with the support of the mobeds of the Zoroastrian clergy and local dekhans, defeated the army of the Parthian king Artaban V and in 226 was crowned Shahanshah of Iran. He founded the Sassanid dynasty and a new empire, which included Iran proper, Afghanistan, Balochistan (subdued as if somewhat later), Merv, maybe Khorezm and Iraq. Since that time, the “union of the throne and the altar” has begun. “Pure religion” was declared state, and “idolatry” (that is, tribal cults) was persecuted. Sabeism, Gnosticism, Greek polytheism, Chaldean mysticism, Christianity, Buddhism, and Mithraism had to bow to the religion of the Avesta. The sermon of the Gnostic Mani, allowed under Shapur I, in 241-242, ended with the execution of the thinker in 276. Only Judaism was not persecuted, because the Jews were the sincere enemies of Rome, with whom Iran waged constant wars. The inertial phase associated with the Sassanids continued until 491.

Natural disasters: drought, crop shortages, locust raids - caused riots in 491, and then the shah's favorite, the vizier Mazdak, proposed his program, which consisted of two parts: philosophical and economic. Mazdak believed that the realm of light and goodness is the sphere of will and reason, and evil is the sphere of spontaneity and unreason. Therefore, it is necessary to build a reasonable world: confiscate the property of the rich and distribute it to the needy. (Here it should be noted that Mazdak again tried to change the worldview, i.e. the religion of his contemporaries. The Mazdak movement was of Manichaean origin. More than a hundred years after the death of the teacher, the seeds sown by Mani gave poisonous shoots. “... He made women available and material goods shared and prescribed that everyone should have the same share in it, as in water, fire and pastures,” says the Persian historian Muhammad ibn Haroun. The movement swept the whole country. Another historian, Tabari, wrote: “and often a person did not know his son, nor the son - the father, and no one had enough to live a prosperous life. ”- A.Ya.Ch.)

In 529, Prince Khosroi made a new coup, executed Mazdak, deprived his father of the throne and hung the Mazdakites by the feet. The last 120 years have been tragic. In 651, the Iranian state ceased to exist. Caliph Omar, having conquered Persia, sought not to convert the Persians to Islam, but to collect kharaj and azhizy - a tax on the infidels. To discourage over-conversion, he forbade Muslims from owning land in the conquered territory. Therefore, the wealthy landowners preserved both land and religion by paying heavy taxes. On the other hand, the poor and peasants, who did not value their patches of land, willingly converted to Islam and received highly paid positions, for example, tax collectors. Therefore, most of the Persians voluntarily became Muslims, and rich intellectuals emigrated to India. So Iran became Muslim, and sincerely. Therefore, in the future it will appear in the section of the “Muslim superethnos”.

First of all, I would like to note that each of the above phases of ethnogenesis corresponds to its own faith. This historical example confirms our earlier conclusion that national identity is determined not by the territory and genetics of a person, but by his spiritual essence, i.e. his Faith.

“Nationhood presupposes something immovable, established once and for all, not moving forward; shows itself only what is available in the people in their present position. Nationality, on the contrary, includes not only what was and is, but what will be and can be. (V.G. Belinsky. “Russia before Peter the Great”, 1841)

That is why all those who today stand up for “universal human values” for a “single world culture”, the idea of ​​which they so devotedly serve, are in fact direct conductors and followers of Marx, Engels, Lenin, no matter how they deny them. The roots of this ideology lie in the theory and practice of the social democracy of the last century and gave rapid shoots in the activities of the Russian Bolsheviks. “The slogan of workers' democracy is not “national culture, but an international culture of democracy and the world labor movement ”, put forward by V.I. Ulyanov (“Critical Notes on the National Question”) is most fully implemented in Russia precisely after the “democrats” (supposedly anti-communists) came to power, because “in the name of national culture - Great Russian, Polish, Jewish, Ukrainian, etc. - the Black Hundreds and clerics, and then the bourgeois of all nations, are doing reactionary and dirty deeds” (V.I. Ulyanov, ibid.). How odious look today those who defend the purity of the Russian language, the traditional culture of the Russian peoples, the national classical heritage. All of them "do reactionary and dirty business."

It has long been known that the easiest way to serve an idea is when you verbally oppose it. Despite the fact that “in every national culture there are elements of a democratic and socialist culture, even if not developed, because in every nation there is a working and exploited mass, whose living conditions inevitably give rise to a democratic and socialist ideology” (ibid.), V.I. Ulyanov did not want or could not offer his followers recipes for separating “democratic and socialist” culture from the national one.

Here are a few more examples of Marxist-Leninist “thought”:

“..But in every nation there is also a bourgeois culture (and in the majority still Black-Hundred and clerical) - moreover, not only in the form of "elements", but in the form of a dominant culture. Therefore, “national culture” in general is the culture of landlords, priests, bourgeoisie” / V.I. Lenin. “Critical Notes on the National Question”/.

“In laying down the slogan “an international culture of democracy and a worldwide working-class movement,” we take from each national culture only its democratic and its socialist elements, we take them only and unconditionally in opposition to the bourgeois culture, the bourgeois nationalism of each nation.”

Here are the current cultural figures and they take from behind the “hillock” all the “democratic and socialist elements”, and at the same time they create universal abomination.

“Marxism puts forward in place of any nationalism - internationalism, the fusion of all nations in a higher unity, which is growing before our eyes with every verst of the railway, with every international trust, with each (international in its economic activity, and then in its ideas, according to their aspirations) a workers' union.

This quote can be continued indefinitely. It is in these ideas that the roots of the tragedy that the RUSSIAN NATIONAL culture is experiencing today lie. All the mockery that the democrats have staged today over our culture is rooted in Bolshevism.

Here is another example from the history of the formation of NATIONALITY according to the book by L.N. Gumilyov:

“In the history of the church, the phase of ethnic upsurge can be seen very clearly. In Africa, Donatism became the banner of ethnic upsurge, in Spain in 384 the Gnostic Bishop Priscillian was burned, in Egypt Arius and Athanasius argued. The Arians defeated and baptized many Germans, for whom Arianism, after the triumph of Orthodoxy in 381, became a symbol of opposition to the Romans . But in all cases, in the east of the empire, there was a rapid process of creation from confessional communities, first a sub-ethnos, then an ethnos, and then a super-ethnos - Byzantium”(highlighted by me - A.Ya.Ch.).

It is worth replacing the words ethnos and ethnic with nationality and nationality in the above quotation, we will get a complete picture of the initial emergence of new nationalities, indicated by L.N. Gumilyov territories. The Byzantine nationality ceased to exist just like the Persian one after the conquest of Byzantium by the Muslims. Islam absorbed both the Persians and the Byzantines.

Born in " I”, nationality finds its development in“ Family”.

“Based on the ideals of Christian culture, L.P. Karsavin wrote, it is necessary to recognize the ideal family as a perfect unity of spouses and children. The unity of the family, as a spiritual unity, does not require constant spatial closeness, and, on the other hand, the spatial closeness of the family does not yet create. However, spatial proximity, both a fact and a spiritual order, sometimes turns out to be, if not necessary, then an important moment in the discovery of a family. Thus, in moments of extreme danger and social disasters, people instinctively stick to the family.”

The next step of blood and spiritual intimacy - GENUS.

“Life, the common tribal life gives birth to the individual. But this only means that there is absolutely nothing in the individual that would not exist in the life of the species. The life of individuals is the life of the race. It is impossible to imagine the matter in such a way that the life of the whole family is one thing, and my own life is another. There is one and the same, absolutely single and unique life. There is nothing in man that is superior to his kind. It is in him that his kind is embodied. The will of the family is the person himself, and the will of the individual is not different from the will of the family. Of course, an individual person can strive in every possible way to isolate himself from the common life; but this can only signify what in the given case comes to the disintegration and decomposition of the life of the species itself, the life of the given type itself is decomposed, either at a given time or in a given place. One way or another, the life of the individual is always nothing but the life of the species itself; the genus is the only factor and agent, the only principle that asserts itself in various individuals” / A.F. Losev. ”Motherland”/. And already from the birth, uniting primarily by spiritual kinship - serving the common gods, through which unity is carried out, is formed NATIONALITY.

Based on all of the above, the final conclusion can be drawn:

” NATIONALITY - A HISTORICAL SPIRITUAL community of people interconnected by the unity of the Faith, spiritual and material culture.

Admiring the deeds of our ancestors, believing in the highest destiny of the RUSSIAN people and foreseeing the inevitable greatness of the coming RUSSIA, following A. Pushkin, I would like to repeat:

“... I swear on my honor that for nothing in the world I would not want to change the FATHERLAND, or have a different history, except for the history of our ancestors, such as God gave it to us.”

NA C AND I

“Great is the ignorance of Russia among Russia. Everything lives in foreign magazines and newspapers, and not in their own land. The city does not know the city, man of man, people who live only behind one wall, it seems as if they live beyond the seas.

N.V. Gogol.

“No one will deny the menacing significance of the separatisms that are tearing apart the body of Russia. During the eleven years of the revolution, dozens of national consciousnesses were born, developed, strengthened in her weakened body. Some of them have already acquired formidable power. Every little nation, yesterday half-savage, singles out cadres of half-intelligentsia, who are already driving their Russian teachers away from themselves. Under the cover of international communism, within the ranks of the Communist Party itself, cadres of nationalists are forming, striving to smash the historical body of Russia to pieces. The Kazan Tatars, of course, have nowhere to go. They can only dream of Kazan as the capital of Eurasia. But Ukraine, Georgia (represented by their intelligentsia) are striving for independence. Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan gravitate towards the Asian centers of Islam. The revolution strengthened the national self-consciousness of all peoples, declared counter-revolutionary only the national feelings of the nationality that dominated yesterday "(G.P. Fedotov. "Will Russia exist ?”).

It was written back in 1928. The tendency, which the Russian philosopher had keenly grasped in its very embryo, manifested itself in its fullness and depressing dimensions. The Communist Party nominated from its ranks not internationalists, about the formation of which its ideologists have been repeating all the years, but the most terrifying, illiterate and irresponsible chauvinists before their peoples. The explosive mechanism laid down by the Leninist-Stalinist national policy has been set in motion by the current "democrats", these ideological heirs of the Bolsheviks. Today, the successors of the cause of Lenin-Stalin are the most consistent "democrats" led by Gaidar, G. Popov, G. Yavlinsky, and ultra-communists led by Anpilov and Nina Andreeva.

“The nation is the inevitable product and inevitable form of the bourgeois epoch of social development. And the working class could not grow stronger, mature, take shape without “settling within the nation”, without being “national” (although not at all in the sense that the bourgeoisie understands this). But the development of capitalism more and more breaks down national barriers, destroys national isolation, puts class antagonisms in place of national antagonisms. In the developed capitalist countries, therefore, it is a complete truth that “the workers have no fatherland” and that the “combination of efforts” of the workers, at least in civilized countries, “is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat” (“Communist Manifesto”). The state, this organized violence, inevitably arose at a certain stage in the development of society, when society split into irreconcilable classes, when it could not exist without “power”, supposedly standing above society and to a certain extent isolated from it. Arising within class contradictions, the state becomes “the state of the strongest, economically dominant class, which, with its help, becomes the politically dominant class and in this way acquires new means for subjugating and exploiting the oppressed class.” / V.I. Lenin. "Karl Marx"./

How much paper has been written, how much effort and energy has been spent by the Bolsheviks, and all just to destroy Russia. What hatred one had to burn towards everything Russian in order to devote one's life to the destruction of a unique state. All the conclusions made by social democracy in relation to Russia are not historical, they are devoid of a real historical and legal basis. Speaking about nations and national self-determination, the Russian people were attributed such sins as they had never possessed. “In Russia, the Great Russians not so much united as crushed a number of other nations,” wrote V. Lenin (“Russian zyudekums”). Back in 1913, criticizing the Bund, J. Stalin wrote: “ It (cultural-national autonomy) becomes even more harmful when it is imposed on a “nation”, the existence and future of which is subject to doubt. In such cases, supporters of national autonomy have to protect and conserve all the features of the “nation”, not only useful, but also harmful (as if such can take place - A.Ch.), - if only to “save the nation” from assimilation, if only “save” her.”

The reader now understands why the small peoples and peoples of the North today drag out a miserable existence. Obviously, the ideologists of Marxism and its current successors "democrats" ranked them among the peoples "whose future is in doubt." As for the Russian people, both of them are doing everything to make them disappear from the history of mankind.

“The only correct solution,” I. Stalin wrote further, “regional autonomy, the autonomy of such determined units as Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine, the Caucasus, etc.”

Having come to power, the Bolsheviks went further. They created pseudo-national states in these territories, and the RSFSR, with the aim of further dismemberment, was divided into artificial autonomous republics, despite the warnings of Russian thinkers.

“Russia is a single living organism: geographical, strategic, religious, linguistic, cultural, legal and state, economic and anthropological. This organism will undoubtedly have to work out a new state organization. But its dismemberment will lead to long-term chaos, to general disintegration and ruin, and then to a new gathering of Russian territories and Russian peoples into a new unity. Then history will decide the question of which of the small peoples will survive in general in this new gathering of Russia. We must pray to God that complete fraternal unity be established among the peoples of Russia as soon as possible.” (I.A. Ilyin. “Russia is a living organism.”)

In a report at the 10th Congress of the RCP(b), J. Stalin said justifying himself: “I have a note that we, the communists, are allegedly planting the Belarusian nationality artificially. This is not true, because there is a Belarusian nationality, which has its own language, different from Russian, which is why it is possible to raise the culture of the Belarusian people only in their native language. The same speeches were heard five years ago about Ukraine, about Ukrainian nationality. And recently it was also said that the Ukrainian republic and Ukrainian nationality are an invention of the Germans. Meanwhile, it is clear (and not a word about why it is clear to him and from what this clarity follows - A.Ch.) that the Ukrainian nationality exists, and the development of its culture is the duty of the communists. You can't go against history. It is clear that if Russian elements still predominate in the cities of Ukraine, then in the course of time these cities will inevitably be Ukrainized. About forty years ago Riga was a German city, but since cities grow at the expense of villages, and the village is the guardian of the nationality (highlighted by me! - A.Ch.), now Riga is a purely Latvian city. Fifty years ago, the cities of Hungary had a German character; now they are Magyarized. The same will happen with Belarus, whose cities are still dominated by non-Belarusians.”

If "the village is the guardian of the nationality," then how should one regard all the troubles of the Russian countryside that befell it with the coming of the Bolsheviks to power in Russia? Decossackization, dispossession of kulaks, collectivization, depeasantization, liquidation of “unpromising” villages under the leadership of Academician Zaslavskaya and the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, and, finally, the current destruction of the rural commodity producer by the most “democratic” government. All this primarily affected the Great Russian village. Here one can see the deliberately planned and consistently implemented genocide of the Russian people.

What is a NATION as a social system

Demacratoids of all times and peoples have unanimously asserted and continue to affirm that the Swiss, French, Canadians and even the inhabitants of the United States are independent and united nations. Marxists, because capitalism has supposedly already completely won there, and socialists and other theorists, because “democracy” has allegedly won in these countries in one form or another. But Russia was denied this. We assure you, dear readers, that there was much more democracy in Russia under Nicholas II and even under I. Stalin than in any of the current “most democratic” countries in the world. Today we know from our own experience what the vaunted “Western democracy” is. Russian President Yeltsin was elected by only 25% of voters, and even then, more than half of whom were simply deceived. And the mayor (this vile word was introduced into our lexicon) of the city of Novosibirsk in March 1996 was “elected” by just over 15% of voters, the bulk of these 15% were simply bought, since their well-being is directly related to the rule of this gentleman. What is in common between the free will of the people and these dirty mercantile deals of those in power and the unscrupulous and immoral businessmen bought by it.

“The fact is that Europe does not recognize us as its own. She sees in Russia and in the Slavs in general something alien to her, and at the same time something that cannot serve for her as a simple material from which she could derive her own benefits, as she extracts from China, India, Africa, most of America and etc., - a material that could be molded and molded according to its own model and likeness, as it was previously hoped, as the Germans especially hoped, who, despite their glorified cosmopolitanism, expect the salvation of the world only from a single saving German civilization. Europe sees, therefore, in Russia and in the Slavs not only an alien, but also a hostile principle.

... This is the only satisfactory explanation for the duality of measure and weight with which Europe measures and weighs when it comes to Russia (and not only about Russia, but also about the Slavs in general) - and when it comes to other countries and peoples.

... There is not even anything conscious here, in which Europe could give itself the most impartial account. The cause of the phenomenon lies deeper. It lies in the unexplored depths of those tribal sympathies and antipathies, which constitute, as it were, the historical instinct of peoples, leading them (in addition to, although not against their will and consciousness) to an unknown goal for them; for in the general, main outlines, history is not formed according to the arbitrariness of man, although it is left to him to plant patterns on them.

... Everything original Russian and Slavic seems to her worthy of contempt, and its eradication is the most sacred duty and the true task of civilization. Gemeiner Russe, Bartrusse (Sneaky Russian, bearded Russian) are terms of the greatest contempt in the language of a European, and especially a German. In their eyes, a Russian can claim the dignity of a person only when he has already lost his national image.

... Europe recognizes Russia and the Slavs as something alien to itself, and not only alien, but also hostile. To an impartial observer, this is an irrefutable fact.”

All this was published by N.Ya. Danilevsky in 1871. How far-sighted he was in his conclusions, we can judge almost 140 years later. The Russians did not heed these warnings, “ate too much” of Western philosophical systems and plunged their country and the peoples inhabiting it into an abyss of misfortune and suffering for almost a century.

Pitirim Sorokin, the creator of the science - "Sociology", expelled by the Bolsheviks abroad, answered the above question as follows:

“Without going into a detailed analysis, we can conclude that the nation is a multi-connected (multifunctional), solidary, organized, semi-closed socio-cultural group, at least partially aware of the fact of its existence and unity. This group consists of individuals who:

1) are citizens of one state (Pay attention to the fact that P. Sorokin also correlates belonging to a particular nation with mandatory citizenship within the framework of a nation state - A.Ch.);

2) have a common or similar language and a common set of cultural values ​​derived from the common past history of these individuals and their predecessors; 3) occupy a common territory in which they live and their ancestors lived.

...Citizens of a state are united into one state-system in accordance with interests, values, rights and obligations, or in accordance with state relations determined by their common belonging to one state.

... A nation is a multi-connected social organism, united and cemented by the state, ethnic and territorial ties”.

But Lev Alexandrovich Tikhomirov came closest to understanding what a NATION is. In his work “Individual power as a principle of state structure”, he noted:

“In general, a NATION is the whole mass of individuals and groups whose joint historical existence gives rise to the IDEA of supreme power, over all of them equally dominating, and also puts forward specific representatives of this idea.”

Giving this definition of the NATION, L.A.Tikhomirov did not take into account one important detail: the idea of ​​supreme power arises within the framework of a particular NATIONALITY and this does not mean that this nationality can become a state-forming one. All states of the world are multinational. Sometimes the interests of individual nationalities come into conflict with the interests of the state or the NATION as a whole. In the modern world, such a contradiction is most often presented as a contradiction between a separate people (nationality) and a state-forming (titular) nationality. This is the whole root of the evil that is inflicted by modern politicians on different peoples, when the contradictions between the state bureaucratic machine personifying the UNION OF NATIONALITIES (NATION) are transferred to the plane of contradictions between the various NATIONALITIES that make up this NATION.

Any modern state is a historical union of nationalities who are forced to make various compromises in order to peacefully and prosperously live together in the territories occupied jointly and to jointly protect the interests of these nationalities.

Based on all of the above, we can conclude the following:

“A NATION is a historical union of NATIONALITIES, the joint existence of which gives rise to the IDEA of a single statehood to protect their interests, and also nominates specific representatives to implement this idea. A nation always settles within the framework of its own state.”

PEOPLE - the totality of the inhabitants of the territory, determined by its geographical or political name.

one*. Eudemonism - (from the Greek eudaimonia - bliss) is a direction in ethics (ethical principle), which sees the highest goal of human life in achieving happiness (bliss).

Literature.

1. Lev Gumilyov. "Ethnogenesis and the Biosphere of the Earth".

2. Pyotr Khomyakov. “NATIONAL PROGRESSISM. Theory and ideology of national survival and development of Russia”. Ed. Pallas. 1994

3. V.I. Ulyanov (Lenin). "Critical Notes on the National Question".

4. V.I. Lenin. "Karl Marx".

5. V.I. Lenin "Russian Südekums".

6. O. Bauer. "The National Question and Social Democracy". M., Book, 1918,

7. Stalin I.V. Marxism and the National Question. Stalin I.V. Works. - T. 2. - M.: OGIZ; State Publishing House of Political Literature, 1946, pp. 290–367. 8. I.A. Ilyin. Russia is a living organism. Russian idea. Moscow. Republic. 1992

9. N.Ya.Danilevsky. "Russia and Europe". M.:, 2008

10. L. A. Tikhomirov. "Individual power as a principle of state structure". - New York: National Printing & Publishing C., 1943.

11. G.P. Fedotov. "Will Russia exist?". "The Fate and Sins of Russia", vol. 1, St. Petersburg, publishing house "Sofia", 1991, pp. 173-184.

12. A.F. Losev. "Motherland". Russian idea. Moscow. Republic. 1992

13. K. N. Leontiev. ABOUT WORLDWIDE LOVE. Speech by F.M. Dostoevsky at the Pushkin Festival. "Flowering Complexity": Fav. Art. M. Mol. guard 1992.

14. S. L. Frank, “Incomprehensible”. Moscow, Pravda publishing house, 1990.

15. L.P. Karsavin. "Philosophy of History". Publisher: AST, 2007.

16. V.G. Belinsky. “Russia before Peter the Great”, 1841.

Modern Russia is a multinational state, however, the vast majority of its population (more than 80%) are Russians who live throughout the country and in all subjects of the federation. This circumstance determines a special interest in the history of the Russian ethnos, its formation and development.

The formation of the Russian nation is inextricably linked with the process of formation of Russian national culture and national identity. Self-consciousness is inherent in any ethnic group, it is it that carries the initial sign of ethnic identification - the image "we - they". However, the problem of ethnic self-awareness becomes relevant only in certain periods of history, it is mainly aggravated, at turning points in the life of society. In Russia, this was, for example, at the beginning of the 17th century. (Time of Troubles), at the beginning of the nineteenth century. (Patriotic War of 1812), at the beginning of the twentieth century. (the First World War, the revolution of 1917, the Great Patriotic War) and today (the collapse of the USSR with the subsequent socio-economic and political crisis of Russian society).

The named stages of the history of Russia are similar in one thing - in the presence of a threat to the existence of the Russian state and the Russian people as such. At the same time, in different historical periods, the question of whether “ why are we russians?” stood quite concretely, and various elements of it came to the fore in national self-consciousness.

The national self-consciousness of the Russian ethnos developed primarily in connection with the change in its territorial and state characteristics. This can be traced by how the use of the concepts “Rus”, “Russian land”, “Russian” changed at different stages of Russian history.

In the era of the Old Russian state, which was formed in the 9th - 11th centuries. on the vast territory of the European part of the former USSR, inhabited by East Slavic tribes, the concepts of "Rus", "Russian" had both a broad and a narrow meaning. In the first case, they applied to all the lands that were part of this state - from the left tributaries of the Vistula to the foothills of the Caucasus, from the Taman and the lower Danube to the Gulf of Finland and Lake Ladoga, in the second case they were applied only in relation to the Kyiv, Novgorod and Chernigov lands.

The Mongol invasion violated the territorial integrity of the Old Russian state and weakened the strength of the ethnos, splitting off several parts from it: the lands of Galicia-Volyn, Turov-Pinsk, Kyiv, Polotsk, and later Smolensk and part of Chernigov turned out to be dependent on the Polish, Lithuanian, partially Hungarian states.

With the beginning of the unification of the Russian lands around the Moscow principality, that part of the Old Russian ethnos, which was called Moscow Rusichi. The latter were the result of a mixture of Kyiv Rus and Baltic Slavs with local Finno-Ugric tribes. This mixing occurred in the XII - XIV centuries. and little touched the outskirts of the former Old Russian state, where local tribes - Estonians, Karelians, Vepsians, Saami, Pechora, etc. - retained their original face.

Characteristically, at the end of the fourteenth century. the expression “Russian land” is still used in a broad sense, and Moscow possessions are called “Zalessky land”, but already at the end of the 15th century, “Russian land” begins to be identified with the territory of the Grand Duchy of Moscow. Ivan III minted on his coins the title “ lord of all Russia”, and in the future the terms “Russian” and “Moscow” become, as it were, synonymous. Thus, by the end of the fifteenth century. in the course of the unification of the Russian lands around the Moscow principality and the formation of the Moscow kingdom, it develops Russian people. By the same time, two more nationalities were formed - Ukrainian and Belarusian, – and three new concepts come into circulation: “Great Russia” in relation to the lands of the Muscovite kingdom, “Little Russia” - to the lands inhabited by Ukrainians, and “Belaya Rus” - to Belarusians.

With the formation of the Muscovite kingdom, the continuous expansion of the ethnic territory of Russians began due to the addition of sparsely populated eastern, northern and southern regions. By the end of the XVI century. Russia included many peoples of the Volga, Urals, Western Siberia. The country has become multinational. In the seventeenth century the territory of the Russian state continued to expand. It included the Left-bank Ukraine with Kyiv and the region of Zaporozhye, lands along the Yaik River. The borders of Russia came to the Crimean Khanate, the North Caucasus and the territory of modern Kazakhstan. There was also an advance of the population to the north - to Pomorie, and to the south – to the territory of the so-called "Wild Field", where the estate of the Cossacks was formed, which later acquired the characteristics of an ethnic group. Moving further into Siberia, the Russians by the end of the 17th century. reached the Pacific coast.

We can say that by the end of the seventeenth century. the formation of the Russian ethnos in the state-territorial sense was basically completed, its ethnic territory and the main ethnic groups were determined.

In the period from the seventeenth to the middle of the nineteenth centuries. Russian nationality turned into a Russian nation. It was in the seventeenth century. the process of turning the Russian merchants into a powerful economic and influential political force unfolded, which created the preconditions for the development of capitalism. Manufactories, regional markets arose, trade between the city and the countryside grew, specialization of regions in the production of certain types of agricultural products appeared - stable economic ties were formed between different regions of the country, a single internal market was formed.

The process of formation of the all-Russian market was slowed down by the events of the Time of Troubles associated with the Polish-Swedish-Lithuanian intervention, however, it was these events, however, on the other hand, that stimulated the process of the formation of ethnic self-consciousness, contributed to the national unity of the Russian ethnos. Only in the conditions of confrontation with a common enemy is a truly centralized state formed, only in the conditions of opposition to foreign invaders does a holistic national consciousness arise.

Statehood has always been an important dominant of Russian national identity, but another equally important dominant was associated with it - religious or, more precisely, confessional.

The struggle against foreign invaders in Russia has always been carried out not only from the desire to preserve its ethnic territory and statehood, but also, no less, from the desire to preserve its Orthodox faith - against attempts to introduce Catholicism or Protestantism in Russia as the main threat to national identity.

So, in the Russian national self-consciousness, which has evolved over the centuries, three main features or three leading, pivotal principles can be distinguished: 1) the Orthodox nature of religious ideology; 2) statehood (authoritarian-charismatic type); 3) ethnic dominant (the image of “we - they”, a common historical destiny, ethnic solidarity, etc.

Before 1917 these principles were the defining elements of Russian ethnic self-consciousness and were expressed in a concentrated form in the formula: “For the faith, the tsar and the fatherland!”.

During the Soviet period Significant changes have taken place in the national self-consciousness of Russians. undergone the greatest deformation or transformation religious element of national identity: Orthodox Christian ideology was replaced by a new state ideology - the teachings of Marxism-Leninism, which in the USSR acquired the character and features of a quasi-religion.

Another element of Russian national self-consciousness is statehood- during the years of Soviet power, not only was it not destroyed, but even more strengthened, turning into its main support.

The third, ethnic element Russian national self-consciousness, under the pretext of fighting great-power Russian chauvinism, was practically leveled during the years of Soviet power.

After the establishment of Soviet power, the center began to pursue a policy towards the national outskirts that cannot be unambiguously defined: on the one hand, providing them with all possible assistance, primarily economic and cultural, on the other, the unification of public life, ignoring ethnic and cultural specifics. However, the qualitative difference between the Soviet “empire” and classical empires was the absence of a privileged imperial people. There was no dominant nation in the Soviet Union, it was ruled by the nomenklatura, and the Russian population of the Center was sometimes in a worse position than the inhabitants of the national republics.

In Russian national self-consciousness, as a rule, “we”, that is, ethnic solidarity, was rather weakly expressed. In the history of Russia, a split in national self-consciousness was more often observed, for example, a split in the church in the 17th century, a split into “whites” and “reds” during the Civil War, a split into communists and democrats at the end of the 20th century.

Usually, each nation has some unifying idea that serves as the core of its ethnic cohesion. For the British, it was “the idea of ​​being chosen by God, dominating other less developed peoples”; the Russians didn't. For the Americans, this idea was "opposition to the old world on the basis of new forms of the democratic structure of society." The Russians did not have this either, the Russians were not a new nation. The Armenians united in the face of the threat of physical destruction. Russians, too, in general, never threatened, partly due to the presence of a huge ethnic territory and large numbers, partly due to a strong imperial state.

And yet, all these factors: the experience of a threat to the existence of the nation, and the civilizing, modernizing role in relation to other peoples, and opposing oneself to the “old world” on the basis of the establishment of new social forms of life - all this was inherent in the Russian people, although in a very peculiar form.

The existence of the Russian ethnic group has been threatened several times since the time of the Tatar-Mongol yoke, and each time this threat was overcome at the cost of huge sacrifices and efforts. It was these sacrifices and efforts that became the unifying factors of the Russian people. Russian national self-consciousness was formed on the basis of the experience of joint ultimate efforts and suffering.

Thus, the decisive role in the formation of the Russian “we” was most often played not by constructive and creative motives, but by self-protective motives. At the same time, due to historical circumstances, Russians have always been an integrating factor for all peoples that were part of both the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union. It is the Russian language that has become a means of interethnic communication for many peoples living in Russia and the CIS countries. However, the unifying role of the Russian people has never acted directly and immediately, but always under a certain ideological cover. In the times of tsarism it was the ideology of autocracy, in the Soviet period it was the ideology of proletarian internationalism.

During the reforms of the 1990s. Russian national identity has undergone another shock. The collapse of the USSR and the threat of the collapse of Russian statehood, the collapse of the state ideology of Marxism-Leninism, the socio-economic crisis in Russia itself, which caused massive impoverishment of the population, discrimination against Russians in the former Soviet republics, their migration from areas of national tension, affected all the most important components of the national identity of Russians and provoked a response from them.

As a result of the collapse of the USSR, the Russian people ended up in a divided state and lost its leading position not only in the new CIS states (where it often makes up from a third to a half of the population), but also “... in Russia itself, where representatives of active national minorities, which, as a rule, have their own state formations outside of Russia”.

The situation is further aggravated by the fact that immigrants from the Transcaucasus and Central Asia are legally and illegally resettling in Russia in search of work. For many Russians, they seem to personify everything negative that the market brings with it. According to polls conducted in Moscow between 1993 and 1997, the majority of residents of the capital believe that “non-Russians have too much influence in Russia”, and 37% of Muscovites bluntly stated that they “experience hostility towards persons of a certain nationality”, and among For young people under 20, 69% of all respondents already held this opinion.

The growth of nationalist sentiments among Russians is already quite obvious today. During the existence of the USSR, their share gradually decreased, approaching 50% of the population. In today's Russia, Russians make up more than 80% of the population, and their "ethnic well-being" can have a serious impact on the overall political situation in the country.

This interesting material belongs to the pen of two authors who stand on the platform of the Communist Party. It reflects the dissatisfaction of many communists with the position of the Russian people and the solution of the Russian question.

We can say that the Russian question today is a self-evident non-obviousness. Undoubtedly, it exists, reminding of itself in almost all spheres of life. However, another thing is no less clear: there is no clear understanding in society of what it consists of and what are the ways to solve it. Modern approaches to the Russian question clearly sin with one-sidedness

Chronological: both analytical and journalistic thought do not descend here, as a rule, further than the pre-revolutionary and revolutionary times of the beginning of the 20th century.

Political: the problem is fixated on Trotskyism in its past and present manifestations, as well as on Stalin's struggle against him.

Objective: the objects of analysis and even simple mention remain phenomena such as the modern genocide of the Russian nation, discrimination against Russians in the economy, the social sphere, politics and public administration.

Psychological: the mood of such works is most often "compassionate", so to speak, in nature, reducing everything to complaints about the cruel fate that has befallen the Russian people.

There is no doubt that all these are catchy and significant aspects of the Russian question. However, only aspects. The problem, if taken systematically, is incomparably deeper in terms of historical and multifaceted in structure.

It is no coincidence that the “flower” of the demo-liberal intelligentsia, before whom B. Yeltsin set the task of quickly creating a “national idea” for Russia, after long labors, published a quote from media materials in the late 90s. Leaving, it must be understood, the task of understanding the problem and drawing the necessary conclusions to the share of the readers themselves. And - no "national ideas".

Appeal to the Russian question means an analysis of the entire history of Russians from ancient times to the present day. It requires an answer to three key questions: where are we from, who are we, what do we want and what are we striving for?

To introduce such ideas into the self-consciousness of the people - precisely to introduce, since ideology is introduced into the consciousness of the masses, according to Marxism - is today the main task of the party, which sets itself the task of the national liberation of Russia.

Where are we from?

The first thing to decide here is who is who.

Let's start with the fact that the Russian's view of the key question: what determines a person's nationality, is by no means reduced to "blood problems" (5% of supporters), or to a formal record in documents (6), or to such external signs as a warehouse face, eye and hair color (2), not even to the origin - the presence of three or four generations of ancestors of a given nationality (15% of the requirements), nor to other similar things.

A Russian for the majority of Russians is one (36% of opinions) who is “fully immersed in the culture, history and traditions of this people, who respects and loves it”, who selflessly considers himself a part of the Russian people (23), and whom Russians recognize (10 % of opinions) to their own.

Moreover, such a view of Russianness, revealed by sociological surveys, is stable and traditional, dating back centuries (the article uses materials from sociological monitoring, which has been conducted by the Center for Research on Russian Political Culture for more than seventeen years, since 1988).

Nevertheless, the assertion that there seems to be no Russians as a historical phenomenon, and that the whole past of Russia is eternally unpredictable, has become a common place in today's official propaganda. From TV screens and media pages about Russians and all Russians, fables and tales of the lowest kind pour out. But why? How is it that the most incredible “discoveries” are so easily thrown into the mass consciousness, designed to “erase the white spots of history” to holes? This is largely predetermined by the low level of historical consciousness of the Russians themselves.

Arkaim problem. It would seem that the scientific sensation of recent years is the discovery on the territory of the Chelyabinsk region of the city of the Indo-Europeans III - II millennia BC - "Russian Troy". Its conditional name is Arkaim. This is a fortified city, and a foundry city that produced bronze, this is a temple city and an observatory, where astronomical observations, difficult for that time, were probably carried out. It would seem that this proves that it was Russia that was the fundamental basis of modern European culture. It would seem that the Russians, as descendants of the found civilization, stood on a par with the ancient Egyptians and Babylonians. And what? Who knows about it? What conclusions did state propaganda and the education system draw in the conditions of world competition for civilizational birthrights. How do the parties, including the communists, use it?

Nobody and nothing.

But in the late 80s, when the public fought against the flooding of this historical monument, such moods dominated: “The Ural branch of the Academy of Sciences must raise the issue resolutely, up to the withdrawal from the Academy of Sciences, if Arkaim is not protected”; “The Ministry of Water Resources does not need Arkaim. We need him"; “If Arkaim is not saved, the idea of ​​socialism will fall completely for me,” such demands came in large numbers to state authorities at that time.

A decade and a half later, the problem of Arkaim is again on the agenda of the struggle for national identity. At the IV Congress of Patriotic Organizations of the Urals chaired by G. A. Zyuganov in December 2005, the communists were again called upon to rely on fundamental national values ​​in their political struggle: our spiritual roots go deep into the millennia, - Yu.N. - We are grateful to the Chelyabinsk communists for their unifying role in the patriotic movement of the Urals. I am sure that such meetings and exchange of experience help us to join forces in the matter of reviving our Russian, Russian socialist civilization. And comparing the experience of our struggle, we can confidently declare that only through the revival of the moral and political spirit of the Russian nation can we revive our Fatherland. Good calls and intentions. But they never left the hall, even a large one, where up to a thousand activists of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation and patriotic movements gathered.

Depth of historical memory. As a result, if, say, a modern Pole, as evidenced by the data of local sociologists, is able to be more or less confidently identified in an array of names and events of his native history as early as the 10th-12th centuries, and the average US resident knows his ethnic roots and family pedigree for over, at least four or five generations, then for the current Russian person, the personal historical horizon ends somewhere at the time of the Great Patriotic War or, at the most, at the revolutionary era of 1917.

The rest of the - at least a thousand-year - stage of history for him is literally "covered with darkness" and is sometimes inhabited only by characters of buffoon television series. Those who drink, debauchery, swear, fool around - and that's all, this is where the Russian "telehistory" ends. And it is absolutely impossible to understand how miraculously such “freaks” created an empire that was located on three continents at once (in Europe, Asia and America) by the middle of the 19th century.

Rare cases of recognition in the historical space, according to a series of sociological surveys of the Center for Research on Political Culture of Russia, conducted over the past decade and a half, today very few names emerge in the people's memory: St. Vladimir, who baptized Russia (55% of Russians remember him); Alexander Nevsky, who defeated the crusader army, recruited from all over Europe, on the ice of Lake Peipsi (75); Yermak, who began the annexation of Siberia to Russia (66% of memories); Yes, Field Marshal Kutuzov, who expelled Napoleon with his army of "twelve languages" from Russia (73). There are fixed points, so to speak, but between them there is almost a gap: events and faces are recognized here by at most a quarter or a third of Russians.

Under such conditions, it is easy for an ill-wisher to attack everything - history, values, symbols of the Russian nation.

The problem of the red banner. For example, the red banner, which over the past two decades, pro-regime intellectuals have been strenuously trying to interpret as something “accidental”, “unhistorical”, “bloody” and “calling for violence”. Of course, such attacks are opposed by the fact that this banner is the Banner of Victory. But this is not enough.

It is forgotten that even the Banner of Victory had a red banner, at least twice: not only in 1945, but also in 1380, on the Kulikovo field, where the army of Dmitry Donskoy fought under the “black”, according to the chronicle, i.e. a red flag with the once again international army of Mamai, where, in addition to the Tatars, warriors of a dozen more peoples gathered, up to the “black” Genoese infantry.

Absolutely not introduced here into political controversy is something else - the fact that the red color has long been the most prestigious state symbol, for the possession of which the leading countries of Europe have been fiercely competing. For example, the struggle for the right to use it as a state symbol played a significant role in the "Hundred Years War" (1337 - 1453) between England and France. As a result, France, which initially had a red national flag for centuries (the famous Oriflamme), lost this fight, replacing it with a white banner, while the British took the red color of the banner as an honorary trophy for themselves.

So the red Soviet banner, for all its revolutionary origins (although the red color, by the way, dominated many banners of the White movement), is historically the most prestigious symbol of sovereignty in world history.

It is no coincidence that all kinds of radicals of our day - from Georgia to Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan - are trying to paint their banners in something resembling red. It was from here, based on the historical prestige of the color red, that overseas political technologists generated all these "rose revolutions", "orange" and "tulip" coups. By the way, the unfortunate choice of the blue color (“jeans revolution”) for the special operation to overthrow A. Lukashenko in Belarus, among other factors, played a role in the failure of attempts to destabilize the situation in this republic during the recent presidential elections. In general, if the red color were not inseparable from the Russian people and the communists, all kinds of pro-Western forces in the post-Soviet space would long ago have fought for the right to call red their own. By the way, in this series there is also an attempt to intercept the now communist symbols of the "Motherland": let's remember the turning of their flags into red and gold...

And yet: despite the failure of historical memory and openness to all sorts of suggestions, Russian self-consciousness retains a powerful springboard for revival.

The people remember themselves. “Russians are an ancient people, whose roots go back thousands of years, who have made a huge contribution to world civilization. The state of the Russian people, Russia has always been the guarantor of world stability, holding back the most terrible destroyers (Genghis Khan and Batu, Charles XII, Napoleon, Hitler) ”- this is the position of more than half of Russians.

Whereas the assertions that the Russians are an “adjective name” and it makes no sense to talk about their civilizational role (4% of opinions); hypocritical lamentations that they supposedly lost their ethnic and cultural "I" and are doomed to leave the historical stage (6); pseudo-scientific conceptions of “immaturity” of Russians, which, supposedly, must be led by some other people (9); accusations that Russians are obsessed with either “mania of self-destruction” or messianism (6% of references) - none of this, despite all the suggestions, has taken root in Russian, and in general Russian self-consciousness.

“The Russians were, are and will be an original and great people, even a super-people, for a millennium uniting many and many other peoples around themselves. Behind them is the future” - this is how up to 35 percent of Russians and Russians see the essence of the issue. This is the essence of Russian self-consciousness. Self-consciousness has not yet been realized in the socio-political sphere.

Yes, Russians today are a divided, split people. And not only because the collapse of the USSR left 20 million of their fellow tribesmen outside the borders of present-day Russia. Cracks have furrowed the very mentality of the nation, largely depriving it of homogeneity, and hence the ability to deed to counteract destructive, oppressive influences from outside. The atomization of the Russian ethnos has, perhaps, reached its limit today. And it is comparable only with the era preceding the accession of Ivan III (XV century), who threw off the Horde Yoke, or the times of the Troubles of the XVII century, before the formation of the militia of Minin and Pozharsky.

“You don’t know your own” is the best characteristic of today's Russians. Judging by what brings people together these days, only 3 percent of Russians point to a national community. And neither religion (3%), nor culture and education (3), nor profession (3), nor even life in one country (10% of references) - none of this is also able to unite the nation. Social, class interests (6), and political views (2), and even purely mercantile, monetary (5% of statements) aspirations are powerless here.

So far, at least some unifying influence (20% of responses) is exerted by the family.

However, for almost every third of our contemporaries, nothing can bring them together and unite them.

This inferiority is keenly felt by the very same Russian self-consciousness, prompting it to raise the question of what to do over and over again. However, the answer here turns out to be, as a rule, banal and fails to point the way for practical nationwide action.

So, speaking about values ​​and guidelines that can serve to unite the people, the majority of citizens mention the rule of law (45% of ratings), the guarantee of the interests of the individual and the people (35), order (29), etc.

But how to achieve all this?

The block of nationally colored values ​​is in second, or even third place. Few rely on patriotism (25% of ratings) or the restoration of the integrity of the historical State of Russia (18), on the memory of the great historical past of the people (17), on Russianness and originality (8% of references) of Russian civilization.

And all this despite the fact that the people's worldview feels - and very acutely - a growing threat from all sides. For example, up to four-fifths of the Russian people regarded the NATO aggression against Yugoslavia as a demonstration of "what the loss of the former great power can also turn out for our country." And they concluded: "it is necessary to carry out a complete changing of the guard at the leading state level." However, this threat, even being conscious, could not activate the self-consciousness of Russians, move from the plane of feelings to the plane of deeds.

This is clearly manifested in the affairs of politics: the decisive part of the Russians (and with them the vast majority of the entire population of the country) still cannot reconcile politics and their national interests. Unlike not only foreign states, but also countries that have emerged in the post-Soviet space, the national (Russian) and political (party) principles in Russia remain unified, and exist in the public life of the people each by itself. Hence the constant defeat and loss.

And yet, only very well-organized mass parties that combine devotion to national and state values ​​with the defense of the ideals of social justice and democracy will be able to protect the interests of Russia in the 21st century, according to the relative majority of Russians (one-third). And at the same time they point to the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, seeing in it, every fourth, the most “pro-Russian party”.

It is not for nothing that the notorious Mr. Pozner recently interpreted this circumstance in this way: "Many of those who give their votes in elections to Zyuganov and his team, in fact, vote not for the communist, but for the nationalist ideology." Note: “nationalist ideology”, translated from the language of Pozner, means national-patriotic ideology.

However, unfortunately, Posner flatters the Communist Party. The creative national, patriotic moment in the work of the Communist Party is still weak. When it comes to political practice, things are a bit different. None of the political parties of today's Russia, whether it be the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, United Russia, the Liberal Democratic Party or Rodina, is perceived as a force that really relies on the Russian people in its activities by more than 5-6 percent of the population. It is not in vain that every election campaign the Kremlin tries to fill this void with all sorts of remakes such as the Russian Socialist Party or the Rus party, which no one remembers after voting and mastering colossal election funds.

And therefore it is self-evident: the political force that manages to identify itself in the eyes of Russians with a Russian origin will dominate domestic politics not for years and decades, but for centuries. The Russian foothold in politics is free and the struggle for it - a sharp and tough struggle - is ahead ...

Where are we going and what do we want?

The permanent crisis of Russian society, which has been going on for two decades, has given very specific features to the "image of the future" that has been formed - although it continues to constantly change its appearance - in the Russian worldview. The traditional question "what to do?" loses neither its importance nor its sharpness and pain.

And in particular, at the turn of the 21st century, one of the dominants of the Russian “image of the future” was the feeling of a strong rollback, the collapse of everything and everything in the darkest centuries of the past, backward historical movement.

"Russia is being thrown far into the past - into the wild capitalism of the 19th century, and they are doing it ... "democrats" and "reformers," say 52 percent of Russians.

"In our country, especially in Moscow and other large cities (in markets, in shops and just in street outlets), the situation is such as was not seen during the Golden Horde yoke of the 13th-15th centuries: everything is in the hands of" guests "from the Caucasus - and try to argue with it," 26 percent of respondents say in the course of sociological soundings.

Another layer (26%) of the population perceives the present and the future in a different way, but in the same emotional vein: “Russia is heading towards the almost epic times of the 7th-8th centuries, when the Khazar Khaganate took tribute from Russia, it is in this direction that the “oligarchs” push the country.

And someone assesses the historical perspectives as follows: “Back in the era of feudal fragmentation (such as the 11th - 13th centuries), various regional leaders intend to bring us back,” 17 percent of the population believe, “who dream of turning their regions, territories and republics into something like personal (and then hereditary) destinies, to tear Russia apart.

The reaction to such a historical perspective was for a long time "flight syndrome", i.e. an attempt to morally and psychologically escape from modernity, hide in a comfortable imaginary world, go into "historical emigration". Right up to the end of the 1990s, only a very few wanted to be in the future, which would be a consequence of the present - about 28 percent of the population. If many Russians were in the hands of a “time machine”, most would make a different choice - they would be a thing of the past. For example, in the Soviet, especially Brezhnev, era (30 - 32% of preferences) or in pre-revolutionary Russia (13%), up to Kievan and Moscow Rus or Peter's Russia.

And only at the beginning of the new century the situation changed somewhat. The relative majority, approximately 30-40 percent, of Russians and Russians came to the conclusion that they should remain in their own time, in their own historical space. Do not try to psychologically isolate yourself from him with dreams of leaving for other epochs and realities, but fight for him with all available forces.

The Russians began to settle in the historical path that fell to them. However, this again required them to decide: how to live on, how to straighten out the "sliding" fate somewhere in the wrong place?

And here Russian self-consciousness again rests against the same wall of disbelief in the best. Yeltsin's collapse and Putin's stagnation are increasingly oppressing the self-consciousness of the nation.

Even such a goal, which has received nationwide support, as the restoration of a union state, is now far from being solved easily. Yes, from half to three quarters of the population would like to unite in a new Union of Russia, Belarus, Ukraine and Kazakhstan. They sympathize, in every third case, with the pro-Russian positions of the inhabitants of Crimea, Transnistria, and Abkhazia. However, not so many believe in the reality of such a reunion. Only one in ten believes that all this can be done right now. Whereas less than half of Russians, and indeed of all Russians, are convinced that even if it is possible to achieve unification, it will not be soon. Half consider it almost impossible.

The reason is obvious: the slow but inexorable strangulation by the Russian government of the idea of ​​a Russian-Belarusian united state seriously undermined faith in the restoration of the Union, almost depriving, in fact, Russian self-consciousness of one of the few supports for the future.

However, situations of this kind are not yet able to destroy what can be called the people's program for the revival of Russia, which, according to sociological data, is as follows:

- “To put an end to separatism in the country; introduce real equality of all territories, including Russian lands” (37% of the demands).

- "Remove from the leadership of Russia all those who, while ruling it, served foreign, not Russian and Russian, interests, covering it up with words about "civilization" and "democracy" (27%).

- “To return to the people all the property that was taken from them by various cunning businessmen during the “privatization”; that Soviet power that was destroyed by the "democrats"; the culture that has been eradicated over the years” (21%).

Neither the notorious "universal values", nor "democratic" transformations, nor the increasing "regionalization" of the country, nor the fight against some "fascist red-browns" - none of this, in the opinion of most people (excluding about a quarter - a third of the population of Russia), no place in the future.

The Russian question in Russia did not appear today or yesterday.

In one historical guise or another, it has been appearing in a more or less politicized form for at least a millennium.

Russia knew him back in the 12th - 13th centuries, when a wave of protest began to rise against such a "side" phenomenon of Christianization as the Greek-Byzantine dominance. As a reaction to this foreign influence, then, under the shadow of the grand ducal towers, under the auspices of the grand dukes, there was a partial revival of pagan rituals, symbols, artistic images, which was interrupted by the Mongol-Tatar invasion, which was perceived, as the chronicles wrote, as a punishment "for our sins ".

He was recognized by post-Petrine Russia, tormented by Bironovism, the answer to which at the intellectual level was the development of the Russian national ideology by Lomonosov, and at the highest state level, the personnel, so to speak, policy of Elizaveta Petrovna, who swept out foreign tribesmen from all the cracks of the state apparatus of that time.

And then - an even more consistent and rigidly ideological line of Catherine the Great, introducing Russian folk attire at court, surrounding herself with Russian statesmen and uncompromisingly pursuing a policy of restoring the geopolitical integrity of Russia, lost since the Golden Horde yoke: the Crimea, Belarus, Ukrainian earth.

The next step was taken in the spiritual, cultural sphere by Pushkin, Lermontov, Tyutchev, who created both the Russian language that is still alive and the national literary and poetic tradition. Some of Pushkin's tales, depicting traces of the Indo-European epic, are worth a lot here. As well as the concept of the historical destiny of Russia, on which Tyutchev worked so much.

Then came the Slavophiles, who provided a scientific basis for many of the developments of the past and managed to place the Russian question itself on contemporary intellectual ground, singling it out from the array of Russian social problems.

However, this issue has not yet been resolved. And a period of global revolutionary upheavals so divided the Russian people and power that October 1917 broke out.

Finally, the Russian question was raised in the post-war years and was almost approved by I.V. Stalin as a symbol of the era: state symbols were restored, key historical figures rose from oblivion, communal principles were recreated in a socialist way in the already collective-farm village, Orthodoxy returned from disgrace ...

This is the great historical tradition that the Communist Party of the Russian Federation has entered today, putting forward as its immediate task the rise of the national liberation movement in today's Russia. The intentions proclaimed by the Communist Party of the Russian Federation at the Tenth Congress, the program put forward here for the struggle for the national-state interests of Russians, of all Russians, demand from the communists the most serious attention to the Russian mentality, and to all Russian, Russian history and culture in general.

Because knowledge is now the most important weapon in the political struggle. “You can become a communist only when you enrich your memory with the knowledge of all the riches that mankind has developed,” this testament of V. I. Lenin is more relevant today than ever. The Communists of Russia will be able to solve the Russian question in Russia only if they become an integral part of it, weaving the Russian principle, culture, science and traditions into the country's communist movement.

Sergei Vasiltsov, Sergei Obukhov

During the experiment, the following results were obtained: The Russian language is beautiful, complex, difficult, rich, native, powerful, great, necessary, interesting, immense, huge, understandable, easy, accessible, beloved, diverse, multifaceted, musical, song, melodious , poetic, iridescent, pouring, smart, beautiful, shameless, vulgar, rude, abusive, obscene, scandalous ...

• Introduction
• Main part
• 1. The concept of national identity, its structure
• 2. The role of the Russian language in the development of national Russian identity
• 3. Language as a way of national worldview
• 4. Russian language in the national consciousness
• Conclusion
• List of used literature

Russian language and national identity (abstract, term paper, diploma, control)

And although thinking was ahead of the language, its results, taking shape in the language, are somewhat modified (thought cannot be fully reflected in the word). Therefore, language becomes a separate participant in communication and the further development of thinking, it cannot be a simple mold for thought, it can simultaneously hide part of thought and supplement thought with language associations.

All of the above leads to the conclusion that there is a need to take care of the native language, since it is the custodian of the national cultural tradition, and transmits the moral values ​​of the people to new generations. In addition, in the new information that constantly comes to a person, only those who know the richness of their native language well and can distinguish between words and the content behind them are guided. Sometimes outwardly brilliant, attractive words carry emptiness or even advice that is harmful to a person. On the other hand, outwardly simple, ordinary words can be filled with a deep and reasonable meaning.

4. The Russian language in the national consciousness Another interesting question is the attitude of the citizens of the Russian Federation themselves towards the national language. To do this, the researchers conducted an experiment, during which the subjects were asked to answer the question in writing: “What is the Russian language?”. They were asked to give five associative reactions, the time to complete the task was not limited [Sternin, el.].

Thus, the researchers were able to identify the general ideas of adult native speakers of the Russian language about their language, as well as to discover the age and gender characteristics of this concept.

During the experiment, the following results were obtained: The Russian language is beautiful, complex, difficult, rich, native, powerful, great, necessary, interesting, immense, huge, understandable, easy, accessible, beloved, diverse, multifaceted, musical, song, melodious , poetic, iridescent, flowing, smart, beautiful, shameless, vulgar, rude, abusive, obscene, scandalous, bright, colorful, colorful, sensual, lyrical, spoiled, tortured, emaciated, littered, many borrowings, emotional, worldwide, global, universal, multinational, concise, international, interethnic, ambiguous, affectionate, pleasant, kind, cute, good, clean, bright, popular, unexplored to the end, unpredictable, unexpected, winged, eternal, unique, skillful, sincere [Sternin, el. ].

As you can see, in the Russian national consciousness in general, the Russian language is most often associated with beautiful, rich, complex, necessary, native, powerful. Thus, a positive aesthetic evaluation of the language dominates.

We also note that in the communicative consciousness of young people the idea of ​​the necessity and importance of studying the Russian language (necessary, obligatory, useful) prevails. And in the communicative consciousness of the older generation, the main part of the lexical units that represent the concept of "Russian language" is colloquial, colloquial.

Thus, for the Russian people, their language is perceived only from a positive point of view.

Conclusion After analyzing the sources on the topic "Russian language and national identity", we can draw the following conclusions:

1. A nation is a unity of individuals united by a common mentality, culture and spiritual values.

2. National self-consciousness is understood as a set of ideas, traditions and concepts of representatives of a nation or ethnic group, which make it possible to reproduce this community of people as a whole and classify each individual as a given social integrity.

National self-consciousness includes such components as national language, national culture, sense of territory, national self-identification. The main feature that unites the nation is the language.

3. In relation to the nation, the language plays a consolidating role, that is, it maintains its unity, serves as a means of creating a national culture and passing it on to the next generations.

4. There is a need to take care of the native language, since it is the custodian of the national cultural tradition, and transmits the moral values ​​of the people to new generations. In addition, in the new information that constantly comes to a person, only those who know the richness of their native language well and can distinguish between words and the content behind them are guided.

List of references Arutyunova ND National consciousness, language, meaning // Linguistics at the end of the 20th century: results and prospects. - M., 1995.

Bolshakova A. Yu. The phenomenon of the Russian mentality: the main directions and methods of research // Russian history: problems of mentality. - M., 1995. - S. 7−10.

Volkov G. N. Ethnopedagogy: textbook. allowance. - M., 1999. - S. 10−15.

Humboldt V. Selected Works on Linguistics. - M.: 1984. - S. 324

Zadokhin A. Russian language and national identity. [Electronic resource]. Access mode: http://www.rau.su/observer/N12_2003/12 12 .htm (accessed 03.06.2013)

Political science. Vocabulary. / V. N. Konovalov - M: RGU, 2010. [Electronic resource]. Access mode: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/politology/122/%D0%9D%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0% D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5 (accessed 06/03/2013)

Sternin I. Language and national consciousness. [Electronic resource]. Access mode: http://www.ruthenia.ru/logos/number/49/07.pdf (accessed 03.06.2013)

Ter-Minasova S. G. Language and intercultural communication. - M.: 2000. - S. 40.

Bibliography

1. Arutyunova N. D. National consciousness, language, meaning// Linguistics at the end of the 20th century: results and prospects. - M., 1995.
2. Bolshakova A. Yu. The phenomenon of Russian mentality: main directions and methods of research // Russian history: mentality problems. - M., 1995. - S. 7−10.
3. Volkov G. N. Ethnopedagogy: textbook. allowance. - M., 1999. - S. 10−15.
4. Humboldt W. Selected works on linguistics. - M.: 1984. - S. 324
5. Zadokhin A. Russian language and national identity. [Electronic resource]. Access mode: http://www.rau.su/observer/N12_2003/1212.htm (Accessed 03.06.2013)
6. Political science. Vocabulary. / VN Konovalov - M: RSU, 2010. [Electronic resource]. Access mode: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/politology/122/%D0%9D%D0%B0%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B0% D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5 (accessed 06/03/2013)
7. Sternin I. Language and national consciousness. [Electronic resource]. Access mode: http://www.ruthenia.ru/logos/number/49/07.pdf (accessed 03.06.2013)
8. Ter-Minasova S. G. Language and intercultural communication. - M.: 2000. - S. 40.