From Cyclism to Theologism, or Again about the Peculiarities of Russian History

Abstract

This article was written as a response to the discussion in the previous issue. The concept of the author was regarded by B. N. Mironov as cyclic-pendulum, or inversion nature of Russia’s development. According to it, Russia, unlike the West, is characterized not by progressive, but by spasmodic pendulum development: progress is replaced by reaction, movement goes in a vicious circle. However, this concept is only a part of the whole theory of Dvornichenko, which states, in essence, that the state emerged in the Russian history late, only in 16th century, and in time acquired unique features of state-serfdom system. This system was from time to time disturbed by so called “Smutas” (crises). It is possible to regard these phenomena as cyclic, but it is necessary to take into account that the state after a period of crisis, on the one hand, revives, but on the other hand, there is a tendency towards collapse during such periods and a possibility of the state’s final dissolution. Some neglect of these phenomena in our history and the desire to study only so-called modernization leads historians to a biased picture of the Russian history, which glosses over the truth. This is evident in the works of B. N. Mironov and his adherents, particularly, in the articles published within the framework of this discussion. One could not overestimate a positive impact of authoritarian power in our history because it is a main cause of every “smuta”. In general, we shouldn’t exaggerate the achievements of the country because the price of every crisis period with the process of demodernization is dear. For the further understanding of the Russian history new and active discussions are necessary.