A civil war is a fierce armed struggle for power between different social groups. A civil war is always a tragedy, turmoil, the disintegration of a social organism that did not find the strength to cope with the disease that struck it, the collapse of statehood, a social catastrophe. The beginning of the war in the spring - summer of 1917, considering the July events in Petrograd and the "Kornilovshchina" as its first acts; others tend to associate it with the October Revolution and the coming to power of the Bolsheviks.

There are four stages of the war:

Summer-autumn 1918 (stage of escalation: rebellion of the White Czechs, Entente landings in the North and in Japan, England, the USA - in the Far East, the formation of anti-Soviet centers in the Volga region, the Urals, Siberia, the North Caucasus, the Don, the execution of the latter's family Russian Tsar, declaration of the Soviet Republic as a single military camp);

Autumn 1918 - spring 1919 (the stage of strengthening foreign military intervention: the annulment of the Brest Treaty, the intensification of the red and white terror);

Spring 1919 - spring 1920 (the stage of military confrontation between the regular Red and White armies: the campaigns of the troops of A. V. Kolchak, A. I. Denikin, N. N. Yudenich and their reflection, from the second half of 1919 - the decisive successes of the Red Army);

Summer-autumn 1920 (the stage of the military defeat of the Whites: the war with Poland, the defeat of P. Wrangel).

Causes of the Civil War

Representatives of the white movement laid the blame on the Bolsheviks, who tried to destroy centuries-old institutions of private property by force, overcome the natural inequality of people, and impose a dangerous utopia on society. The Bolsheviks and their supporters considered the overthrown exploiting classes to be guilty of the Civil War, which, in order to preserve their privileges and wealth, unleashed a bloody massacre against the working people.

Many recognize that Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. needed deep reforms, but the authorities and society showed their inability to solve them in a timely and fair manner. The authorities did not want to listen to society, society treated the authorities with contempt. Calls for struggle prevailed, drowning out timid voices in favor of cooperation. The guilt of the main political parties seems obvious in this sense: they preferred split and turmoil to consent.

There are two main camps - red and white. In the latter, a very peculiar place was occupied by the so-called third force - "counter-revolutionary democracy", or "democratic revolution", which from the end of 1918 declared the need to fight both the Bolsheviks and the general dictatorship. The Red movement relied on the support of the main part of the working class and the poorest peasantry. The social basis of the white movement was the officers, bureaucracy, the nobility, the bourgeoisie, individual representatives of the workers and peasants.

The party that expressed the position of the Reds was the Bolsheviks. The party composition of the white movement is heterogeneous: Black Hundred-monarchist, liberal, socialist parties. The program goals of the red movement are: the preservation and establishment of Soviet power throughout Russia, the suppression of anti-Soviet forces, the strengthening of the dictatorship of the proletariat as a condition for building a socialist society. The program goals of the white movement were not so clearly formulated.

There was a sharp struggle over questions about the future state structure (republic or monarchy), about land (restoration of landownership or recognition of the results of land redistribution). In general, the white movement advocated the overthrow of Soviet power, the power of the Bolsheviks, the restoration of a united and indivisible Russia, the convening of a people's assembly on the basis of universal suffrage to determine the future of the country, the recognition of the right to private property, land reform, and the guarantee of fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens.

Why did the Bolsheviks win the Civil War! On the one hand, serious mistakes made by the leaders of the white movement played a role (they failed to avoid moral degeneration, overcome internal disunity, create an effective power structure, offer an attractive agrarian program, convince the national outskirts that the slogan of a united and indivisible Russia does not contradict them interests, etc.).

Population losses amounted to 25 million hours, taking into account the population decline:

Secondly, given that out of 1.5-2 million emigrants, a significant part was the intelligentsia, => the civil war caused a deterioration in the country's gene pool.

Thirdly, the deepest social consequence was the liquidation of entire classes of Russian society - the landlords, the big and middle bourgeoisie and wealthy peasants.

Fourthly, the economic disruption led to an acute shortage of food products.

Fifth, the card supply of food, as well as essential industrial goods, consolidated the egalitarian justice generated by communal traditions. The slowdown in the development of the country was caused by equalizing efficiency.

There is nothing more terrible in the history of the people than a fratricidal war. Nothing can compensate for the deaths of people - the most valuable thing that a state can have. As a result of the victory in the civil war, the Bolsheviks managed to preserve the statehood, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia. With the formation of the USSR in 1922, the Russian civilizational-heterogeneous conglomerate with obvious imperial signs was practically recreated. The victory of the Bolsheviks in the civil war led to the curtailment of democracy, the dominance of a one-party system, when the party ruled on behalf of the people, on behalf of the party the Central Committee, the Politburo and, in fact, the General Secretary or his entourage.

As a result of the civil war, not only were the foundations of a new society laid, its model was tested, but the tendencies that led Russia to the western path of civilizational development were largely swept away;

The defeat of all anti-Soviet, anti-Bolshevik forces, the defeat of the White Army and interventionist troops;

Preservation, including by force of arms, of a significant part of the territory of the former Russian Empire, suppression of attempts by a number of national regions to secede from the Republic of Soviets;

The victory in the Civil War created geopolitical, social and ideological conditions for the further strengthening of the Bolshevik regime. It meant the victory of the communist ideology, the dictatorship of the proletariat, the state form of ownership.

Stalin's version of modernization. Formation and development of the bureaucratic and command-administrative system

The Stalinist system of economic management was a means of another modernization of the economy of our state, which was conceived as the creation of a powerful military-industrial complex and a modern technological core, consisting of heavy industry enterprises. We find the main elements of the Stalinist system even under the tsarist regime. The command-administrative system in the heavy and especially the military industry, the regulation of prices for basic goods, the central planning of technological breakthroughs.

So, for example, the GOELRO plan was nothing more than a modified imperial plan for the electrification of Russia. Low relative prices for energy carriers and other raw materials were even in tsarist times a way to stimulate industry, compensating for an unfavorable climate. In particular, it was low oil prices that made the rapid transition from manual labor and horse-drawn traction to the mechanization of agriculture more profitable.

The task of modernization could only be solved by importing modern technology from the West. The need for a forced breakthrough was due to the fact that the threat of war was growing.

State. power opened up to the Bolsheviks a fundamentally new path of planned industrialization. Knowing the parameters of the main technological pyramids on the basis of Western experience, it was possible to transfer them to Soviet soil, carrying out complex centralized technology purchases abroad. It is the catching-up nature of industrialization, repeating, on the whole, the most successful of the already tested technological solutions of the West, that determined the success of large-scale planning in physical terms.

Technology imports could be financed either through foreign loans or by limiting the consumption of the population and selling the released export goods on the foreign market. The possibility of foreign lending was significantly limited by the refusal of the Soviet government to pay the royal debts. In addition, foreign lending significantly narrowed the scope for investment. The Great Depression made it difficult to export many commodities.

The forced concentration on the export of grain and raw materials led to a significant destruction of the consumer sector: from agricultural production to the industry of consumer goods. At the same time, a very fast and dynamic process of modernization of the country began. It was based on the intensive work of the vast majority of the population, even officials worked around the clock. A sharp decrease in the share of consumption in the total product made it possible in a short historical period to accumulate huge capital and produce something unprecedented - to make a technological leap and practically catch up with the West in key parameters of technological development.

Not everything went smoothly during the industrialization years. Due to carelessness, criminal negligence and due to sabotage, unique technological equipment often disappeared. To raise the quality of work, on December 9, 1933, criminal liability was introduced for the production of low-quality products. The country's unpreparedness for the immediate acceptance of new technologies was largely due to both staff shortages and the human factor. It is impossible to learn new routines right away. It often turned out that the imported technology was unsuitable for Russian conditions and needed to be improved, for which there were not enough qualifications and funds.

Summing up the results of the first five-year plan (1929-1932), Stalin said: "We did not have ferrous metallurgy, the basis for the industrialization of the country. We have it now. We did not have a tractor industry. We have it now. We did not have an automobile industry. We have it now. We didn't have a machine tool industry. We have it now."

Further, the chemical, aviation industry, and the production of agricultural machinery are called in the same way. In a word, Soviet leaders understood where wealth comes from, how to achieve growth in labor productivity, and always tried to grab the key links among the technologies used. The thirties were a time of industrial breakthrough, which cannot be denied. Russia very quickly became one of the largest industrial powers in the world. At that time, many technological breakthroughs were made.

The Stalinist economy at one time found ways to ensure a colossal influx of labor into priority industries.

It turned out that for this it is enough to carry out the following economic measures:

1) limit consumption in the village to a half-starvation level without reducing agricultural production;

2) concentrate and mechanize agriculture;

3) release a colossal number of workers due to the concentration of agricultural production and its mechanization;

4) to create a huge supply of women's labor force in industry by influencing the traditional intra-family work structure and creating social conditions (by the way, female labor has always been used in Russian agriculture);

5) ensure downward pressure on urban wages and consumption in the city by increasing the supply of labor;

6) direct the released funds to increase the rate of accumulation; 7) increase the efficiency of investment by improving the management of the planned economy.

The next most important factor that determined the rapid development of the country's economy was the clear orientation of the leadership towards the rapid development of technology, and not just declarations about the need to master new technologies or doubling the GDP, but the hard work of the leadership to master the most advanced that was in the world economy.

And if at first technological development was carried out through the import of technologies, then by the end of the 30s, due to the priority development of education and science, the organization of design bureaus, etc., conditions were created for the start of creating their own technologies. Thus, the task of modernizing Russia, which lagged behind the West in its industrial development by 50-100 years, was solved. The whole country began to quickly master new, more and more productive labor skills and habits that had not been updated for decades before.

At the same time, the Stalinist leadership realized that a prerequisite for the success of modernization projects was mobilization development under the strong stimulating influence of the state. In particular, it was necessary to abandon the hope of investing only at the expense of voluntary savings by citizens of part of their income, it was necessary to invest at public expense, increasing fiscal pressure with a clear targeted spending of the collected funds.

Stalin did not allow the consumption of that part of the national income that was necessary to accelerate the development of the country and without which the security of the country would, in the very near future, be in jeopardy. At the same time, a course was taken to maximize the development of the country's natural potential, the use of its own resources. Thus, Stalin solved the problems of victory in the inevitable coming war, preserving the integrity of the country and creating a bloc of allied states that would additionally protect this integrity.

FROM the formation of new institutions of Russian statehood

For the period from 1992-2000. 6 prime ministers were replaced: E. Gaidar, V. Chernomyrdin, S. Stepashin, S. Kiriyenko, E. Primakov, V. Putin, the average duration of a minister's work was two months.

Formation of a new statehood

Liquidation of Soviet Power The August events of 1991 and the liquidation of the USSR put forward the task of forming the foundations of a new statehood. First of all, presidential structures began to be created. Under the President of Russia, the Security Council and the Presidential Council were created, and the post of State Secretary was introduced. On the ground, the institution of representatives of the President was introduced, who exercised power bypassing the local Soviets. The Government of Russia was also formed directly by the president, all appointments were made on the direct instructions of B.N. Yeltsin, management was carried out on the basis of decrees.

The changes made came into conflict with the provisions of the Constitution of the RSFSR of 1977. It did not provide for the post of president and presidential structures of power. It rejected the very idea of ​​separation of powers, saying that all power in the center and in the localities belongs to the Soviets of People's Deputies. The supreme body of power was the Congress of People's Deputies, and in the intervals between congresses - the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR. The government was accountable to the Supreme Council.

With the start of reforms and their high cost, political opposition to the president's policies is forming in the country. The Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation becomes the center of the opposition. The contradiction between the Soviets and the president reached a dead end. Only the Congress of People's Deputies or a nationwide referendum could change the Constitution.
In March 1993, B. Yeltsin, in an address to the citizens of Russia, announced the introduction of presidential rule in the country until the adoption of a new Constitution.

However, this statement caused the rallying of all opposition forces. In April 1993, an All-Russian referendum was held, which raised questions about trust in the President and maintaining his course. Most of the referendum participants voted for trust in the President. On the basis of the decisions of the referendum, the President began to develop a new Constitution.

September 21, 1993 B.N. Yeltsin announced the start of a "step-by-step constitutional reform." Presidential Decree No. 1400 announced the dissolution of the Congress of People's Deputies and the Supreme Council, the liquidation of the entire system of Soviets from top to bottom, and announced the holding of elections to a new legislative body - the Federal Assembly.
The Supreme Council recognized this presidential decree as inconsistent with the Constitution and, in turn, decided to remove the president as violating the Constitution. A.V. was elected President. Rutskoy. B.N. recognized the actions as unconstitutional. Yeltsin and the Constitutional Court. The political crisis led to an armed clash (October 3-4, 1993) between supporters of the Supreme Council and the President. It ended with the execution of Parliament and its dissolution.

Having won a military victory, the president issued a Decree on holding elections to a new legislative body - the Federal Assembly, consisting of two chambers - the Federation Council and the State Duma. According to the decree, half of the deputies were elected from territorial districts, half - from the lists of political parties and associations. At the same time, a referendum was held on the new Constitution. According to the Constitution, Russia was a Federal Democratic Republic with a presidential form of government.

The President was the guarantor of the Constitution, the head of state, the Supreme Commander. He appointed the government of the country, which was responsible only to the President, the President had the right of suspensive veto, to issue decrees having the force of law. The President had the right to dissolve the Duma, in the event of a threefold rejection of the candidacy of the Prime Minister proposed by the President.

The rights of the State Duma were much less than the powers of the dissolved Supreme Soviet and were limited to the function of passing laws. Deputies lost the right to control the activities of administrative bodies (the right to request a deputy). After the adoption of the law by the Duma, it must be approved by the Federation Council - the second chamber of the Federal Assembly, consisting of the heads of local legislative bodies and heads of administration of the subjects of the Federation. After that, the law must be approved by the President and only after that it was considered adopted. The Duma was endowed with a number of exclusive rights: to approve the budget of the state, to announce an amnesty and impeachment of the president, to approve a candidate for the post of prime minister, but in the event of a threefold rejection, it must be dissolved.

In January 1994, the new Federal Assembly began its work. Realizing that normal activity is impossible in the conditions of confrontation, the deputies and presidential structures were forced to compromise. In February 1994, the Duma announced an amnesty for the participants in the August (1991) and October (1993) events. Everyone who committed unlawful acts was amnestied, both on the one hand and on the other. In April-June 1994, a memorandum on civil peace and public accord was adopted, signed by all Duma factions, most political parties and movements in Russia. The signing of these documents contributed to the cessation of civil confrontation in society.

64!!The present stage of the development of mankind means colossal changes and unifying processes in the world economy. These processes at the end of the twentieth century in the economic literature became fashionable to call globalization. But they began much earlier - in the second half of the nineteenth century. The main patterns of the process, which is now commonly called the globalization of the economy, were studied by many scientists of the late 21st - early 20th centuries.

Then this process had a more suitable name for it - the formation of imperialism, as a monopoly stage in the development of capitalism (the word globalization indicates unification, but obscures the question of how exactly and on what basis it is carried out). In this article it is not possible to analyze the richest factual material on the basis of which one can judge with full confidence the history of globalization in the 20th century. The reader will easily recall, for example, two world wars, which resulted in new divisions of the world into zones of economic expansion and other major historical events.

To cite the history of the transformation of one or another capital (bank, company, etc., and all mergers and acquisitions), which had a serious impact on the world economy, is possible only in a separate work devoted only to this. Moreover, the interested reader can easily find a lot of information to trace this story. Here I would like to pay attention only to the main stages and trends in the process of globalization as a whole and see (also in general terms) how they determine the functioning of the labor market.

Since at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries the process of globalization (the formation of monopoly capitalism) manifested itself only as the unification of production and banking capital into financial capital and the establishment of the expansion of financial capital, scientists of that time mainly paid attention to the analysis of the activities of banks and the influence of the concentration of financial capital on the development of production. The works “Imperialism” by J. A. Hobson, “Finance Capital” by R. Hilferding, “Imperialism as the Highest Stage of Capitalism” by V. I. Lenin are considered classic. In these works, with all scientific rigor, it was shown that free competition had come to an end.

The main characteristic of the current stage of development of the world economy is the transformation of free competition into a monopoly and competition between monopolists. Monopoly becomes over free competition. This gives rise to new contradictions.

The monopoly stage of capitalism, according to Lenin, is characterized by such features:

1) the concentration of production and capital, which has reached such a high degree that it has given rise to monopolies that play a decisive role in economic life;

2) the merging of banking and industrial capital and the creation on its basis of "financial capital", a financial oligarchy;

3) by the fact that the export of capital, in contrast to the export of goods, acquires special significance; 4) that international monopoly unions of capitalists are being created, which divide the world among themselves;

5) the completion of the territorial division of the world between the largest capitalist states.

The trends noted by Lenin further deepened and developed. Their development was accompanied by a number of large-scale global crises and new redistributions of the planet. In the second half of the twentieth century, capitalism, which was formed as a system of international financial capital, where banking corporations gained control over the development of industry, began to turn into a system of industrial capital with international technological chains of industrial production. At this stage of development, capital no longer needs colonies in the old (late 19th - early 20th century) sense of the word, most of the former colonies gained independence (48-60).

This, however, did not change their subordinate position, but only aggravated it. For example, most of the formally independent countries of Latin America throughout the twentieth century were brutally exploited and plundered colonies of American (US) capital. Neo-colonialism has played an outstanding role in shaping the modern world labor market.

Transnational companies have entered the arena of world competition, which control not only entire industries, but also complexes of related industries. Many industries that do not belong to multinational companies are beginning to play the role of auxiliary, service industries, where the organization of production and the form of labor exploitation are often at a lower level of development than in the "main" industries.

Thus, the essence of the modern process of globalization is the unification of the entire world economy into a single industrial system based on monopoly capitalism. Its main features are the complete loss of independence of national markets and the establishment of the expansion of transnational corporations, whose interests determine the state policy of capitalist countries, competition between monopolies (transnational corporations), reorientation of the world economy to serve the interests of transnational corporations. Therefore, at this stage of the development of the world economy, there is a rapid transfer of production to countries with a higher rate of profit, and on the other hand, a deepening of the global division of labor.

At the end of the twentieth century, as a result of the trends described above, the world division of labor deepened enormously and the modern world labor market was created. It is characterized, on the one hand, by the deepening of the specialization of individual countries and even continents, and, on the other hand, by the openness of borders both for the transfer of production to countries with cheaper labor and for an increase in labor migration flows, depending on the demand for it in certain countries. other countries. The modern world labor market is a complex unified system, which in turn consists of national markets, but is not limited to them. Changes in the demand and supply of labor in individual national labor markets are a local expression of changes that occur in the structure of the world market, in the world production system.

The globalization of the labor market includes two main trends. The first is the deepening of the specialization of the national production of individual countries (continents). This determines the specifics of supply and demand in national labor markets, and through specialization, includes national production and the national labor market in world production in a specific, defined way. The second is the rapid transfer of production (this may concern entire industries) to countries where the rate of profit is higher. The second trend is the reason for the rapid changes in the structure of national labor markets. This is an increase in the demand for a workforce of appropriate qualifications in the event of a transfer of a certain type of production to the country and, at the same time, a decrease in the demand for labor that was involved in enterprises that became unprofitable in this country and were closed or re-profiled. In each individual country, these processes have their own characteristics and specifics.

Thousands of jobs are constantly appearing and disappearing around the world, and competition between workers in different countries is becoming fiercer. This is a constant source of unemployment, which means the absence or unsatisfactory amount of livelihood for a part of humanity.

The problem of training a workforce that could meet the needs of production also makes itself felt. And this is much more interested in capital than in the fate of billions of people who earn their living by their own labor.

On the one hand, the production of labor power must be as cheap as possible, and on the other hand, it must satisfy a demand that is constantly changing. Here we must note the contradiction between these two demands of capitalism. Cheap training of the labor force is inextricably linked with a reduction in the cost of its training. This entails a decrease in the quantity and a decrease in the quality of knowledge and reduces them to the necessary minimum for the performance of one or another production function (lawyer, programmer, locksmith, assembly line worker). At the same time, every change in demand in the labor market requires people who live off the sale of their labor force to quickly retrain. This becomes a huge problem for narrow specialists, and for industries where there is not enough labor force with the necessary qualifications. The capitalists are losing.

The number of people who are directly employed in the sphere of material production is constantly increasing in the world, but in the so-called developed countries this share is less due to the fact that production from these countries is transferred to countries with cheaper labor. Here, the tendency to a constant increase in the number of employees in the provision of services, and people who perform work on the redistribution of material assets (bank employees, lawyers, managers, etc.) prevails. This trend has served as the basis for creating myths about the post-industrial and information society. The main mistake of their authors is a misunderstanding that the development of social production can no longer be considered on the example of individual (developed) countries, without taking into account the rest of the world, since there are no longer really separate economies.

It should be taken into account that there are two relatively independent segments in the world labor market. The first of these covers a highly skilled workforce that has relatively constant employment and consistently high wages. This is the elite of the world proletariat (USA, EEC, etc.). The second, a much larger segment, predominantly covers the labor force from poor countries, which is in much worse conditions. In the second segment, one can single out workers who illegally migrate to rich countries, since they cannot find work in their homeland that would allow them to have the means they need to live.

By the way, this category includes up to 7 million Ukrainian citizens working in Russia and the EU. Their salary is usually much lower than that of local workers who do the same work. They are in such a position that they do not require the creation of appropriate working conditions and the provision of social guarantees (medical insurance, compensation in case of temporary or complete disability). As a result, illegal labor migrants displace local workers. This is a good breeding ground for the spread of racist and xenophobic sentiments. Capitalists easily use them to increase discrimination in the labor market on the basis of nationality or citizenship, which makes it possible to lower wages that are already low for this country.

Capital is not interested in how this affects the lives of people working for it, and the lives of their families. The capitalist is forced to constantly look for the labor force he needs, which would cost less. After all, otherwise he will lose in competition with other, more successful and cunning capitalists. And the point here is not at all a bad or good capitalist. And in essence the system of world capitalism.

Political Modernization in Russia: Search for an Alternative

The content of political modernization

In political theory, under modernization refers to the totality of the processes of industrialization, bureaucratization, secularization, urbanization, the accelerated development of education and science, representative political power, the acceleration of spatial and social mobility, the improvement of the quality of life, the rationalization of social relations, which lead to the formation of a “modern open society” as opposed to a “traditional closed society” .

political modernization can be defined as the formation, development and dissemination of modern political institutions, practices, as well as a modern political structure. At the same time, under modern political institutions and practices should be understood not as a cast from the political institutions of developed democracies, but as those political institutions and practices that are most capable of ensuring an adequate response and adaptation of the political system to changing conditions, to the challenges of modernity. These institutions and practices may correspond to models of modern democratic institutions or differ to varying degrees: from the rejection of “foreign” samples to the adoption of a form when it is filled with content that is initially unusual for it.

At the same time, it is objectively necessary, on the one hand, to maintain political stability as the most important condition for social development as a whole, and on the other hand, to expand the possibilities and forms of political participation, the mass base for reforms.

Two main reasons can hinder the process of political modernization (S.A. Lantsov). The first is lagging behind changes in other spheres of society's life. Such a gap can cause a revolutionary crisis. Another reason is that the level of development of civil society and the political culture of the society may not be prepared for the rapidly proceeding democratization. In this case, there is also a high probability of a crisis situation fraught with chaos, leading to ochlocracy.

Two factors contribute to successful modernization (V.V. Lapkin, V.I. Pantin): the internal readiness of the modernizing society for deep political reforms that limit the power of the bureaucracy and establish adequate “rules of the game” for the main political actors; the desire and ability of the most developed countries of the world to provide this community with effective economic and political assistance, mitigating the burden of ongoing reforms.

The most important indicator of the country's progress along the path of political modernization is the role and place of the legislature in the structure of political institutions: the representation of the interests of all social groups by the parliament, the real impact on the adoption of power decisions.

Where the formation of a system of representative institutions took place without revolutionary upheavals, it, as a rule, was distinguished by smoothness and gradualness. An example is the Scandinavian countries. In each of them, it took about a hundred years to consolidate parliamentary norms and form democratic electoral systems. In France, the rapid democratization turned out to be too much pressure, which neither people nor state institutions could withstand. New historical cycles were required, several severe revolutionary crises before the process of creating a stable system of parliamentary democracy was completed in the country.

Among the researchers who were actively involved in the theoretical problems of political modernization, a special place belongs to S. Huntington, who proposed a theoretical scheme of political modernization, which not only most successfully explains the processes that have taken place in the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America in recent decades, but also helps to understand political history of Russia.

In accordance with the concept of S. Huntington, the social mechanism and dynamics of political modernization are as follows. The impetus for the start of modernization is a certain combination of internal and external factors that prompt the ruling elite to start reforms. Transformations may affect economic and social institutions, but not the traditional political system.

Consequently, it is possible in principle to implement socio-economic modernization "from above", within the framework of the old political institutions and under the leadership of the traditional elite. However, in order for the "transit" to be completed successfully, it is necessary to comply with a number of conditions and, above all, to ensure a balance between changes in various spheres of society. The determining condition is the willingness of the ruling elite to carry out not only technical and economic, but also political modernization.

S. Huntington emphasizes the importance of the middle class, which consists of entrepreneurs, managers, engineers and technicians, officers, civil servants, lawyers, teachers, and university professors. The most prominent place in the structure of the middle class is occupied by the intelligentsia, which is characterized as potentially the most oppositional force. It is the intelligentsia who are the first to assimilate new political ideas and contribute to their dissemination in society.

As a result, an increasing number of people, entire social groups that previously stood outside public life, are changing their attitudes. These subjects are beginning to realize that politics directly concerns their private interests, that their personal destiny depends on the decisions made by the authorities. There is an increasingly conscious desire to participate in politics, to search for mechanisms and ways of influencing the adoption of government decisions.

Since traditional institutions do not ensure the inclusion in public life of the part of the population awakening to active political activity, public discontent spreads to them. There is a struggle between the modernizing-minded elite and the traditional one, which can take various forms: from violent, revolutionary to peaceful. As a result of this struggle, the old system is being destroyed, new institutions, legal and political norms are being created that can ensure the participation of the masses in political life. The former ruling elite, unable to cope with the problems that have arisen, are being pushed aside by the new elite, which is more dynamic and open to the trends of the times.

Features of modern Russian political modernization

Researchers consider modernization as the main vector of Russia's development over the past centuries, including the Soviet and post-Soviet periods, in turn, noting the originality of Russian modernization. However, V.A.Yadov and T.I. Zaslavskaya believe that post-communist transformations and modernization are fundamentally different processes, the study of which requires different paradigms. Although they have common elements, the differences are also significant. Thus, the transformation is initially accompanied not by creation, but by destruction: the crisis of science and education, the curtailment of high-tech industries, the drain of the best minds abroad, the deterioration of the quality of life, etc. Under these conditions, it is hardly appropriate to identify the content of modern transformations with modernization changes.

Nevertheless, after achieving stability, the processes in the country can be characterized as modernizing. The formation of modern political institutions and practices is carried out in parallel with transformational changes, which indicates the simultaneous development of these processes.

According to a number of researchers (M.V. Ilyin, E.Yu. Meleshkina, V.I. Pantin), the process of political modernization in Russia can be generally attributed to the endogenous-exogenous type. A characteristic feature of this type of modernization is the combination of various own and borrowed institutions and traditions. Due to the weakness of civil society and the exclusive role played by the state in Russia, the modernization of society is constantly being replaced by the modernization of the state - its military-industrial power, bureaucracy, repressive bodies, the public sector of the economy, etc. As a result, the tasks of accelerated military-industrial modernization of the state, strengthening it as a world power were often solved at the expense of anti-modernization, partial archaization and degradation of society.

Reformers, as a rule, cannot count on popular support, since the population is always conservative for the most part and is wary of any change, because the usual way of life is changing. Only the socially most active part of society, which shares its goals, can become a support for the reformers. Therefore, the reform of post-Soviet Russia in the early 1990s. carried out in times of crisis. The reformers of the "first wave" were unable to create a solid social basis for the reforms, to establish contact with society. The effectiveness of the reforms themselves, their ability to change life for the better, was also overestimated. As a result, the very concept of reform and the values ​​on which it was attempted to be based were discredited.

The Russian authorities, having sharply limited state intervention in various spheres of society, expected a sharp increase in the activity of citizens. However, the egalitarian, paternalistic mentality of Russian society did not contribute to the emergence of a large number of energetic, enterprising people capable of organizing their lives on new principles. The economic and political activity of people turned out to be insufficient to bring Russian life in line with European standards.

Political modernization in the early 2000s carried out in more favorable conditions: sustainable economic growth, political stability, a gradual increase in living standards. However, in order to move forward further along the path of political modernization, it is necessary not only to realize the need for reforms, the political will of the reformer, but also to profoundly transform the mentality of Russian society, associated with the assimilation of the experience of modern European civilization.

One of the difficulties in analyzing contemporary Russian political reality lies in the fact that the vital activity of civil society is influenced by the contradictions that arise in the process of public administration in the context of a protracted structural crisis.

Crisis development of Russia in the 1990s. outlined the following main problems, the lack of progress in solving which can further increase tension in society and the political system:

Development of a medium- and long-term strategy for the development of society, the purpose of which will be the sustainable transformation of the existing socio-economic structure and the creation of prerequisites for the organic integration of Russia into the world economy;

Establishing a balance that meets the conditions of modern Russian society between the principles of private initiative and state intervention in the economy in determining and implementing the socio-economic course;

Bringing the professional and intellectual level of the ruling groups into line with the requirements of managing society in the context of its transition to a higher level of socio-economic development, to a political system with a more complex organization;

Qualitative renewal of the main political institutions and the content of their activities, as well as the development of a set of principles and norms of public administration.

A feature of the domestic civilizational development is the fact that Russian society has not experienced such fundamental spiritual and intellectual upheavals as the Renaissance, the Reformation, the human rights movement in the West, which laid the foundations for rationalistic forms of economic activity and the modern system of political representation. In addition, some segments of the social structure of post-Soviet Russia have specific features that have arisen as a result of the most complex interaction of historical-psychological, ethnic, demographic, and cultural-religious factors.

Russian society responds appropriately to modernization impulses coming from above. Among the main characteristic features, one can single out rejection, passive resistance to innovations, the slow accumulation of contradictions and the potential for discontent, a crisis of self-identification, and popular protest facing the past.

Today's Russia is collapsing traditional society , but no one is sure that the goals, identities and standards of behavior proposed by the political elite correspond to the requirements of modernity. Today we have new, democratic in form, but weak and not yet fully established political and economic institutions. V.V. Lapkin and V.I. Pantin believes that political modernization in Russia will largely be determined by the 2007-2008 elections. and 2011-2012, which will subject the Russian political system to a serious test of strength.

The institutional system that is taking shape in Russia does not guarantee the creation of stable functioning democratic political institutions, since without mass support they are not only not democratic, but also not viable. Therefore, the "power vertical" being built should be supplemented by a "social horizontal" - the interaction of public and political organizations representing the interests of various strata and groups. This combination of vertical and horizontal ties, accompanied by the social responsibility of officials and business representatives, which, according to V.V. Putin, “we are obliged to remember that the source of well-being and prosperity of Russia is the people”, can become the basis for the successful development of political

Lushnikov Oleg Vadimovich
Researcher at the Institute of History and Archeology, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences

The topic of the civil war is huge, complex, controversial, and is so connected with the personal views of researchers that sometimes you realize that almost 100 years have passed, and the civil war is still going on. Disputes continue who is more to blame - whites or reds, who started the terror first, and who was more cruel.

The civil war became a national tragedy, both for those who were in power, and for the intelligentsia, and for the common people. Under the conditions of the external and internal war that did not stop for 7 years, the entire established world collapsed. The economy was destroyed, personal destinies were broken, the country lost colossal resources - material and human. The death of millions in fratricidal combat, devastation, famine, diseases, epidemics, threw the country back for decades, and caused new crises (demographic, economic, etc.). To a certain extent, the inevitable methods of forced industrialization of the 1930s were laid at the same time. and accompanying victims.

While "big politics" was solving global issues, the life of ordinary people turned into an ongoing nightmare. The documents of the Perm archives (GAPO and GOPAPO) impartially testify to the realities of society in a period of instability of power, the attitude of the population to the policies of the whites and reds. The leitmotif of all the documents of this period is the theme of hunger, devastation, violence, chaos.

A comprehensive analysis of what is happening in the country was given "in hot pursuit" in the "Appeal of Perm University professors to scientists in Europe and America" ​​signed by A.I. Syrtsov. “All printing is suspended; no newspapers are published except Pravda. Free preaching in the church entails prison and execution... The slightest manifestation of displeasure causes punitive expeditions that carry out mass executions and even the destruction of entire villages. Under such conditions, the only way out for the population is an uprising. And indeed, the uprisings do not stop ... The country captured by the Bolsheviks is getting upset every day, thanks to the complete disorganization of life and poor nutrition, labor productivity has fallen 5 times, which even the Soviet authorities admit. Passive resistance or sabotage, manifested at every step, finally demoralized the people's labor. The unpunished capture of someone else's made labor meaningless. In this regard, the amount of food is decreasing every day and hunger is spreading wider and wider. There is a decrease in livestock and an ominous reduction in plowing in the country, which, however, is understandable; who wants to plow and sow, since he is not sure that the harvest will go to him, and will not be taken away by the committees of the poor or requisitioned for the needs of the Red Army ... After the departure of the Bolsheviks in the areas they left behind, they find everywhere the corpses of not only executed, but tortured by them victims. Especially terrible are the moments when, under the pressure of the advancing Siberian troops, the Red Army soldiers leave the areas where they ruled. Their anger reaches extreme limits. They forcibly steal residents with them, attack civilians, kill them, invade houses, where entire families are often slaughtered, rape women, and plunder property. In the villages, to this is added the senseless slaughter of those cattle that they cannot steal with them. (GAPO. F. r-656. Op. 1. D. 33. L. 1–9.)

The result of such a policy was the “Perm catastrophe” of the Reds in December 1918, and the successful mobilization and offensive of the Whites in the Kama region in the spring of 1919 (GAPO. F. r-656. Op. 1. D. 5. L. 76 .; F. р-746. Inv. 2. D. 54. L. 11, 11 rev.), and the amazing intensity of passions and the readiness to die “like a samurai”, but not to fall into the “red monsters” among part of the Perm peasantry. (GAPO. F. r-656. Op. 1. D. 4. L. 298, 298v.)

In the summer of 1919, the most irreconcilable either died in battle or left for Siberia and emigration. Tired of the arbitrariness of the military, the population hoped to find peace under the new government. However, soon after the red agitation generously distributing promises (F. r-484. Op. 2. D. 19. L. 1, 1 rev.), people in the village and in the city again faced the reality of “war communism”. Inflation, devastation, lack of food (GOPAPO. F. 557. Op. 1. D. 8. L. 14 .; F. 557. Op. 1. D. 3. L. 117.), Arbitrariness of power (GAPO. F 383. Inventory 1. File 20. Sheet 271.; F. R-49. Inventory 3. D. 19. Sheet 2, 2v.; F. R-656. Inventory 1. D. 32. L. 1–8; GOPAPO. F. 557. Inv. 1. D. 9. L. 68.; F. 557. Inv. 1. D. 138. F. 77, 77v.; 557. Inv. 1. D. 50. L. 63-65.) cause dissatisfaction even with workers and peasants who accepted the new government with hope, which often developed into spontaneous protests, covert and open criticism of the authorities, workers' strikes and peasant uprisings, mass desertion from the Red Army and prolonged partisan resistance in many districts of the province (Cherdyn, Osa, Okhansk, Kungur) (GOPAPO. F. 557. Inv. 1. D. 52. L. 55 .; F. 557. Inv. 1. D. 7. L. 69, 69v., F. 754. Inv. 2. D. 5. L. 195, 195v.). The authorities did not actually control most of the territory of the province, continuing to hold on to the bayonets of punitive detachments (GOPAPO. F. 557. Inv. 1. D. 52. L. 158-159).

A set of documents from the Perm archives highlights the realities of the food dictatorship, the activities of the committees and food detachments, the pumping out of food from the village and its hungry everyday life (GOPAPO. F. 557. Op. 1. D. 52. atrocities of food workers (GOPAPO. F. 557. Inv. 1. D. 50. L. 29, 29v. GAPO. F. r-49. Inv. 1. D. 534. L. 78, 78v.). In each document - tr “Comrades, freedom, equality and fraternity are preached everywhere and everywhere, but, unfortunately, I still don’t see any freedom or equality for the peasant yet, but they lead him, the poor fellow, like a leash horse, force him to soon time to thresh bread and at the same time provide bread, hay, straw, potatoes for bulking points, they are driven to all kinds of work and forced to bring fuel for all state institutions and even officials and are driven on duty, at the same time leaving no more than 1 horse on the farm, and require uniforms for our red eagles to the front, and a large amount of meat is required. And in such a stupor, the peasant’s head is completely spinning, and it happens that a peasant has no time to bring a hay cart and a bundle of firewood for his household, and he drives, poor, in the middle of the night ... ”(GOPAPO. F. 557. Op. 1. D 38. L. 89.)

“There are riots in our village, two soldiers came and took away a young cow from us, they impose very large taxes. If there is a pound of flour in the barn, then half a pound is taken away. We don't know how to live, it's very bad... Life is very bad. You can't say a word right now, otherwise you'll be arrested. They also take potatoes and eggs from us. Petya, this government is very bad.” (GOPAPO. F. 557. Op. 1. D. 53. L. 29-30v.)

The attitude of the people to the new government is also characteristic, with the demand to disperse the councils of idlers and bureaucrats and return the headman, clerk and constable to the village. “Zhul crammed everywhere: bosses, commissars, etc., scoundrels, robbers, former drunkards who slept under the boat on the shore; they are commissars, they are our rulers. Our husbands, our fathers, our sons involuntarily shed blood at the front, and these damned communists hang around in the rear, save their skins, travel around the villages, arrange performances, such lazy people want to enlighten the people. This is only mockery of us, there is nothing more, if you please, now drive to work in such cold and such deep snow, tell jokes, we women go to the forest to chop firewood - not felt boots, not bast shoes and leather shoes, but go ... In an institution where 2 people were sitting, they ruled all affairs, and now there are 20 people, and they also say that there is already so much work - and there is no time to eat. Of course, there is a lot of work when they are almost completely illiterate: you come with some piece of paper, and you go from table to table, here it’s clear as day that he doesn’t know either “A” or “B”! (GAPO. F. r.-737. Op. 2. D. 1. L. 17–18 v.)

The food pumped out of the villages by repeated repeated surplus appropriations under peppy loud reports (GOPAPO. F. 557. Op. 1. D. 138. L. 97.) led to a terrible famine in the winter of 1919 and in the spring of 1920 (GOPAPO. F. 557. Op.1. D. 7. L. 79). Peasants dying of hunger were forced to buy bread at exorbitant prices in neighboring counties, if only they could turn in an unbearable surplus appropriation (GOPAPO. F. 557. Op. 1.D. 52. L. 94–96 .; F. 557. Op. 1. D. 138. L. 21.). Cultivation areas have fallen catastrophically. The former province-producer itself became in dire need of bread. (GOPAPO. F. 557. Inv. 1. D. 138. L. 21.; F. 557. Inv. 1. D. 138. L. 38, 38v.). At the same time, the food taken from the people was actively and with impunity plundered by those who “guarded” and distributed it, rotted in tons in warehouses, and then thrown into ravines for all to see the hungry. (GOPAPO. F. 557. Op. 1. D. 52. L. 94–96, 104–106, 133, 133v.). The bungling of individual leaders and the general line of the Central Committee on the "food dictatorship" as the most effective way to control society, almost did the Soviet Power a disservice.

Typical responses to the "second coming of the Bolsheviks" a year later. “1.07.20. Today in Perm they are celebrating the anniversary of the liberation from the bloody Kolchakovshchina, in other words, the liberation from grits, oil, freedom, etc. therefore, the occasion was only dealt with today until one o'clock, and from 2 o'clock the fun will begin. Eh ... yes, you just need to be silent. ” (GOPAPO. F. 557. Op. 1. D. 51. L. 40, 44.)

“No, in other powers there are no such unrest as you have in Soviet Russia. You rule according to the popular saying: “I used to be a swindler, climbed into my pockets, and now I am the chief commissar in the Council” ... Down with the war, down with the communists! Long live the whites. Down with Lenin and Trotsky with the mare! Long live Kolchak with pig meat! (GOPAPO. F. 557. Op. 1. D. 53. L. 4.)

The growth of anti-Soviet and anti-Semitic sentiments (GOPAPO. F. 557. Inv. 1. D. 10. L. 32 .; F. 557. Inv. 1. D. 52. L. 46-47), mass exit from the party, as ordinary members and responsible employees (GOPAPO. F. 557. Inv. 1. D. 52. L. 63–66; F. 557. Inv. 1. D. 52. L. 63–66 v.; F. 557.op.1.D.55.l.77–79,134,135 .; F. 557. Inv. 1. D. 53. L. 36v.), dissatisfaction with the authorities in a sick, hungry and undressed army (GOPAPO.-F .557.op.1.D.52.l.104-106.; GAPO. F. r-78. Inv. 3. D. 22. L. 41-42.) threatened the very fact of the continued existence of the Bolsheviks among authorities. And only the awareness of V.I. Lenin, the dangers of continuing such a course and the transition to the NEP made it possible to soften relations between Russian society and its new government.

1. War is a tragedy for peaceful people.
2. The enthusiasm of the troops of the first draft.
3. “Today is a brother, and tomorrow is an enemy.”

Any war is a great tragedy for the people in whose country it comes. Sholokhov in the novel "Quiet Don" masterfully describes this national disaster. World War I preceded the civil war. And many Cossack villages have already fully felt the hardships of wartime. Each of them has already gathered and sent its army of the first call. Many families have already realized that they will have to run their household without peasants. And some even managed to get a funeral.

The Cossacks were drawn into a new conflict. Instead of ending, the war unfolded - in new territories, in their own fields, which the women did not have time to cultivate well, in their villages, where small children were left without protection. Historically, the Cossack settlements were military, but for many years of peaceful life they taught people to resolve disputes without weapons. And the Cossacks of the times of the civil war described by Sholokhov are no longer those harsh warriors who were the first to organize these settlements. After the war, they yearned for a plow and a measured home way. But the war did not stop and constantly demanded new injections: people, food, uniforms. Cossack villages became poorer day by day. In every house they greeted the new day with horror: Either a funeral will come, or hungry marauders will attack, or the wounded will wander from a broken regiment, or the last cow will be taken from the yard to feed the army, or an order will come urgently to equip and put ready for battle another military corps. Many farms were completely ruined and houses burned down. There were families where the mother received a funeral for each son and, having accompanied her heartbroken husband there, she died on the bench from despair.

The first troops of the village were equipped as for a parade of troops. Happy conscripts of the first stage vied with each other to bargain for the best military uniform, the most beautiful decorations for horses. Dressed up, on shiny combatant horses, the guys pranced in front of the whole farm and in front of each other. Childish prowess shone in every face. The news of the war was perceived as good news, as an opportunity to take a break from the routine village life, to show oneself, one's valiant prowess.

The first "military actions" brought bitter disappointment. Instead of fun fights and violent attacks, which the boys so dreamed of, the regiments went and went, then forward, then back. Then the enemy suddenly attacked and smashed the unsuspecting ranks. Faced with death for the first time, not everyone was ready to see her terrible face. Frightened, many after the first battles did not want to return to duty. The violent temper of the militant Cossacks remained only in their memories, but in the tales of the old people.

Those who were able to overcome their fear and managed to uphold the honor of their people turned out to be unprepared for professional military operations. The annual fees that were held for the training of soldiers, in fact, turned out to be only a formality. Without training and military knowledge, the boys became easy targets for the regular German army. On this, in fact, the Bolsheviks had to play, raising a civil war during a terrible national tragedy. And the calculation turned out to be correct. Most of the soldiers, exhausted and tired, believed the promises of a quick end to the war, and in addition to gaining all power.

At that moment, the tragedy of the war was greatly intensified by the fact that the people, who yesterday still stood shoulder to shoulder in the trenches, dispersed to different sides of the front. The tired soldiers dropped their weapons, as the Bolshevik leaders called for, and went home. They brought home the ideas of a free society, the overthrow of the tsar and power, told their fathers and younger brothers about it in order to raise them to the defense of the new system. But the old people who lived their lives were not so gullible. Although the life of the home front was not easy, it was firmly supported by tradition. Everyone knew their place in society, their capabilities. And how to live under the new government is still unknown. It is impossible to live without power - the old people know this for sure. And if the new government starts with a war, then no good can be expected from it.

So the fathers did not support their sons. The younger brothers faced a difficult choice: to become an enemy of their father or brother. Father gave life, taught everything he knows. Live with your brother. In a difficult moment, who will help, except for the father and brother? But this split did not bring more grief to anyone than to mothers. Yesterday, a still strong family, brothers who delighted their mother with their Strength, youth, look at each other as enemies. Everything is good for a mother that her child is good, but how can you put two truths in one chest? And there is no joy for mothers: children returned, but strangers.

This trouble came from homes and into the army. Brothers, yesterday's playmates, neighbors have become enemies. However, this was not the most terrible grief, but the fact that the majority of those who embarked on a new path did not think about its essence. Only a few made it to the core of the idea. Others simply believed in the possibility of a happy peaceful life. The promised land and horses rejoiced. These simple peasant muzhiks, who had never studied politics, without looking back believed the theoreticians, who spoke passionately and convincingly. The fact is that these boys did not want anything bad for their comrades. But they did not want to notice that their ideas contradicted the science that had developed among the people. The science by which their ancestors lived for centuries, by which they themselves grew up.

But this time the tradition has receded. Tired, exhausted people adopted a new law. And the new government fully began its journey across the country. In the novel "Quiet Flows the Don" Sholokhov does not describe the structure of the new society. However, the first steps no longer promise anything good. The country is destroyed, the economy is ruined. The poorest peasants before the war lost even the crumbs they had. The new citizens of the new country had to be clothed and fed. And the riots began again - food requisitions. Military power does not know how to live in peace - those who promised peace and happiness after the defeat of the "class enemy" began to look for a new "class enemy". Misfortunes never come alone. Like a snowball, it rolls and, gaining weight and speed, sweeps away more and more victims in its path.

A civil war is a war that goes on inside the country, forcing a father to kill his son, and a brother to kill his brother. This war brings only destruction and suffering. Why is she needed? What causes it? What is the purpose? Two works are devoted to the topic of the Civil War, about the difficult formation of a new life: “The Defeat” by A. Fadeev and “Quiet Flows the Don” by M. Sholokhov.

In M. Sholokhov's epic novel "Quiet Flows the Don" one can see the whole tragedy of a bloody civil war. The book is about the fierce struggle for the victory of Soviet power on the Don, about the life and way of life of the Don Cossacks. They lived freely on the Don: they worked on the land, were a reliable support for the Russian tsars, fought for them and for the state. All families lived at the expense of their work, in prosperity and respect. But this calm, normal life was crossed out by the war.

A very difficult time has come in the life of Russia, which brought great social and moral upheavals. Talking about the fate of Grigory Melikhov and his family, the writer shows these events not only as a misfortune for one family, but also as a tragedy for the whole people. This disaster brought with it pain, devastation and poverty. After the First World War, the Cossacks were drawn into the Civil War. Among all these events, the author especially focuses on the fate of the protagonist of the novel, Grigory Melikhov. The war hardened the peace-loving Cossack, she forced him to kill. After his first murder, when he hacked an Austrian in battle, Gregory could not recover for a long time.

He was tormented by sleepless nights and conscience. The war changed Gregory's life. His fluctuations between whites and reds speak of the infirmity of character, that he is looking for the truth in life, rushing about and does not know “whom to lean against?”. But Grigory does not find the truth either among the Bolsheviks or the White Guards. He wants a peaceful life: "My hands need to work, not fight." But the war took that away from him. The war also brought discord into the Melikhovs' family relations. She broke the habitual way of life of these people. The grief and horrors of the war affected all the heroes of the novel.

Another work, A. Fadeev's novel "The Defeat", also covers the theme of the civil war. Shows people who fell into the partisan detachment. There were many truly dedicated people among them, but there were also those who got into the detachment by accident. In fact, both of them are experiencing a tragedy. Some are disappointed in their ideals, others give their lives for these ideals. Fadeev said that in a civil war “there is a selection of human material, everything that is not capable of a real revolutionary struggle is eliminated, and everything that has risen from the true roots of the revolution grows and develops in this struggle. There is a huge transformation of people." All people in the detachment are connected by the events that happen to them. Against the background of these events, the true character of the heroes is revealed. Testing a person is a choice between life and death. Frost, at the cost of his own life, warns the detachment of an ambush, and Sword, sent on patrol, saves his life in this situation: he abandons and betrays his comrades. He did not realize his place in life, and unlike him, Morozka appears to us at the end as a mature, responsible person, aware of his duty to people.

Drawing a conclusion, we can say that a civil war is a cruel and merciless war. It destroys families and destinies of people. This is the tragedy of the country and its people.

Updated: 2018-05-21

Attention!
If you notice an error or typo, highlight the text and press Ctrl+Enter.
Thus, you will provide invaluable benefit to the project and other readers.

Thank you for your attention.

The civil war, in my opinion, is the most cruel and bloody war, because sometimes close people fight in it, who once lived in one whole, united country, who believed in one God and adhered to the same ideals. How does it happen that relatives stand on opposite sides of the barricades and how such wars end, we can trace on the pages of the novel - the epic of M. A. Sholokhov "Quiet Flows the Don".
In his novel, the author tells us how the Cossacks lived freely on the Don: they worked on the land, were a reliable support for the Russian tsars, fought for them and for the state. Their families lived by their own labor, in prosperity and respect. Cheerful, joyful, full of work and pleasant worries, the life of the Cossacks is interrupted by the revolution. And before the people there was a hitherto unfamiliar problem of choice: whose side to take, whom to believe - red, promising equality in everything, but denying faith in the Lord God; or white, those whom their grandfathers and great-grandfathers served faithfully. But does the people need this revolution and war? Knowing what sacrifices would have to be made, what difficulties would have to be overcome, the people would probably answer in the negative. It seems to me that no revolutionary necessity justifies all the victims, broken lives, destroyed families. And so, as Sholokhov writes, “in a mortal fight, brother goes against brother, son against father.” Even Grigory Melekhov, the protagonist of the novel, who previously opposed bloodshed, easily decides the fate of others himself. Of course, the first murder of a man
deeply and painfully strikes him, makes him spend many sleepless nights, but the war makes him cruel. “I became terrible to myself ... Look into my soul, and there is blackness, like in an empty well,” Grigory admits. Everyone became cruel, even women. Recall at least the scene when Daria Melekhova without hesitation kills Kotlyarov, considering him the murderer of her husband Peter. However, not everyone thinks about what blood is shed for, what is the meaning of war. Is it possible that “the rich are driven to death for the needs”? Or to defend the rights common to all, the meaning of which is not very clear to the people. A simple Cossack can only see that this war is becoming meaningless, because you can’t fight for those who rob and kill, rape women and set fire to houses. And such cases were both on the part of the whites and on the part of the reds. "They are all the same ... they are all a yoke around the neck of the Cossacks," says the main character.
In my opinion, the main reason for the tragedy of the Russian people, which affected literally everyone in those days, Sholokhov sees in the drama of the transition from the old way of life that has been formed for centuries to a new way of life. Two worlds collide: everything that used to be an integral part of people's lives, the basis of their existence, suddenly collapses, and the new one still needs to be accepted and used to it.

M.A. Sholokhov is rightly called the chronicler of the Soviet era. "Quiet Don" - a novel about the Cossacks. The central image of the novel is Grigory Melekhov, an ordinary Cossack guy. True, maybe too hot. In the family of Gregory, large and friendly, the Cossacks are sacred ...

If we step aside for a while from historical events, then we can note that the basis of the novel by M. A. Sholokhov "Quiet Flows the Don" is a traditional love triangle. Natalya Melekhova and Aksinya Astakhova love the same Cossack - Grigory Melekhov. He is married...

Many works have been written about forced collectivization and the massacre of the peasantry. We were told about the tragedy of the Russian peasant by the books of S. Zalygin “On the Irtysh”, “Men and Women” by B. Mozhaev, “A Pair of Bays” by V. Tendryakov, “The Roundup” by V. Bykov ...

P.V. Palievsky: “Almost all of us know that in our literature there is a writer of world significance - M.A. Sholokhov. But we are somehow poorly aware of this report, despite the achievements of criticism. You can’t see the new that Sholokhov introduced into literature, perhaps ...

Mikhail Sholokhov's novel "Quiet Flows the Don" tells about one of the most intense and eventful periods in the history of our country - the time of the First World War, the October Revolution and the Civil War. The plot is based on the fate of the Don Cossacks,...