Design a site like this with
Get started


original Russian translation

The issue of identity is central to the controversy surrounding immigration. From the outset, two remarks emerge from the discussion of this topic. The first stems from the observation that while much is said about the identity of the indigenous population, there is generally much less about the identity of the immigrants themselves, which, however, is most threatened, even by the very fact of immigration. As a minority, immigrants are under direct pressure from the way of life of the majority. Being obliterated or, on the contrary, inflated in a provocative, even pathological way, their identity is retained only most often in a negative (or reactive) way, due to the indifference or hostility of the environment in the host country, even the capitalist super-exploitation to which workers are exposed, who find themselves defenseless far from their homeland.

On the other hand, it is striking to see how the problem of identity in certain circles is made dependent solely on immigration. The main, if not the only, “threat” to which the national identity of the French is exposed, allegedly comes from immigrants. This does not take into account factors that are everywhere in the world, both in countries where there are many foreign workers and in countries where there are none at all, that cause the erosion of collective identities: the primacy of consumption, the Westernization of mores, the imposition of homogeneity through the mass media, etc.

It is not difficult at all, in this view of things, to make immigrants scapegoats. However, it is not the fault of the immigrants at all if the French seem no longer able to reproduce their own way of life and demonstrate to the world the originality of thinking and being. It is also not the fault of immigrants if social ties are destroyed wherever liberal individualism spreads, if the inculcation of selfishness narrows the public space that could serve as a crucible for the revival of an active civic spirit, and if people living according to the laws of market ideology become more and more alien to themselves. . It is not the fault of the immigrants if the French are becoming less and less a people, if the nation is becoming a ghost, if the economy is globalizing and people no longer want to be creators of their own lives, but accept more and more what what they decide for them, starting with the values ​​and norms in which they do not participate. Finally, it is not immigrants who influence the minds and impose on radio and television sounds, images, interests and models that “arrived from behind a hillock.” If “mondialism” exists, we will say with all clarity until proven otherwise, then it comes from the other side of the Atlantic, and not from the other side of the Mediterranean. And let’s add that a small Arab shopkeeper, by his neighborhood, definitely contributes more to the preservation of a French identity built on genuine French values ​​than an American-style amusement park or “shopping center”. interests and models “arrived from behind the hillock”. If “mondialism” exists, we will say with all clarity until proven otherwise, then it comes from the other side of the Atlantic, and not from the other side of the Mediterranean. And let’s add that a small Arab shopkeeper, by his neighborhood, definitely contributes more to the preservation of a French identity built on genuine French values ​​than an American-style amusement park or “shopping center”. interests and models “arrived from behind the hillock”. If “mondialism” exists, we will say with all clarity until proven otherwise, then it comes from the other side of the Atlantic, and not from the other side of the Mediterranean. And let’s add that a small Arab shopkeeper, by his neighborhood, definitely contributes more to the preservation of a French identity built on genuine French values ​​than an American-style amusement park or “shopping center”.

The real reasons for the erasure of French identity are in fact the same ones that cause the erosion of all other identities: the fact that the nation-state model has become obsolete, the destruction of all traditional institutions, the decline of civic spirit, the crisis of the representative system, the imitation of the American model, etc. . The obsession with consumption, the cult of material and financial “success”, the disappearance of ideas of the common good and solidarity, the fact that the individual does not connect his future with the fate of the collective, the development of technologies that have now become an independent factor, the growing export of values, the loss of economic, industrial and media independence – only they eroded the “homogeneity” of the French population to an incomparably greater degree than could be done by immigrants, who themselves are not least victims of these processes. “Our identity,” Claude Imbert emphasizes in this regard, “is much more damaged by the loss of citizenship, the cultural confusion imposed by the mass media, the impoverishment of language and spiritual life, and above all the decline of the formerly centralized, powerful, prescriptive state that created we have this famous “identity” (1). In short, if French (and European) identity is collapsing, it is primarily because of the vast process of increasing homogeneity in the world by means of technology and economics, the main engine of which is transnational or American-centered imperialism and which spreads everywhere a sense of meaninglessness, i.e. e. a sense of the absurdity of the world, destroying organic ties.

From this point of view, immigration plays a revealing role. She is a mirror whose task is to enable the French to appreciate the full extent of the latent crisis in which they find themselves, a crisis of which immigration is less a cause than an effect among others. Identity is the more perceived as under threat, the more its vulnerability, instability, in a word, decay is felt. It is for this reason that it is no longer able to digest the influx of foreigners. In this sense, French identity is not so much threatened by the presence of immigrants in France, but precisely because that identity is largely blurred, France is no longer able to deal with the problem of immigration except by indulging in angelic naivety or advocating deportation.

The positions of xenophobes and “cosmopolitans” ultimately coincide, because both believe that there is an inverse relationship between the ability to assert a national identity and the integration of immigrants. The former believe that France, more concerned about its identity and becoming more conscious in this regard, will suddenly get rid of immigrants. The second thinks that the best way to facilitate the admission of immigrants is to contribute to the erasure of French identity. The conclusions are opposite, but the premise is the same. Meanwhile, both are wrong. Just as the presence of immigrants is not a fundamental cause of the destruction of collective identities, the assertion of a French identity will not exactly become an obstacle to the integration of immigrants, but, on the contrary, will facilitate it. Immigration creates a problem because the French identity is proving to be unstable. But it is thanks to the newly realized national identity that we will resolve the difficulties associated with the reception and adaptation of newcomers.

This shows how foolish it is to believe that it would be enough to reverse immigration flows in order to avoid a “decline”. Obsessing over the problem of immigration, making immigrants responsible for what was and was not, at the same time, you can forget about other causes and other culprits. In other words, attention is completely diverted to the other side. It would be interesting to know who benefits from this.

But first of all, you should ask yourself what is identity. Asking about French identity is not about asking who is French (the answer is relatively simple), but rather what is French. Meanwhile, in answering this more important question, the singers of “national identity” limit themselves in general to indulging in pompous reminiscences or appealing to the memory of “great people”, the more or less known founders of “true France” (Clovis, Hugh Capet, crusaders, Karl Martell or Joan of Arc), whose images were hammered into the national consciousness by textbook and pious historiography (2). Meanwhile, this little catechism of what might be called the religion of France (in which eternal France, which never changes, is ready at any time to stand up against the “barbarians”, and the Frenchman, in the extreme case, is defined no more than as someone who is not a foreigner, in the absence of any positive characterization, but only as not belonging to the world of others) has only a very remote relation to the history of the people, whose main feature was that he always knew how to deal with his contradictions. Moreover, they do not make any effort at all, arguing in a Manichaean manner about the continuity of national history, devoid of any contradictions, when globalization is considered simply and exclusively as a result of a conspiracy. Thus, historical digressions are immediately placed in a non-historical perspective, a perspective that is supposedly of fundamental importance, when the goal is not to tell about history, but to describe the “essence” that always allegedly remains the same, and which can only be defined in terms of resistance to otherness or rejection of the Other. Identity thus inevitably comes down to immutability, to a simple copying of the “eternal yesterday”, glorified in the idealized spirit of the past, a fully formed entity that can only be preserved and transmitted as a sacred relic. At the same time, the national feeling itself is deprived of the historical context (the advent of the modern era), which predetermined its appearance. Under these conditions, history becomes essentially something that has no periods, while history is impossible without division into periods. It becomes mere duration, which makes it possible to ignore differences, while duration, by definition, creates dissimilarity, difference between itself and itself, the constant emergence of new differences. Briefly speaking.

Identity is never something one-dimensional. Not only does it always include a diverse base, but it combines constant and changing factors, changes and external influences. Also, the identity of a people or nation is not solely the sum of its history, its customs and dominant traits. As Philippe Forget writes, “any country can be, at first glance, a set of characteristics determined by mores, customs, ethnic, geographical, linguistic, demographic and other factors. However, if these factors can, apparently, create an image or define the social reality in which a people lives, they do not help to form an idea of ​​what a people’s identity is as an ancient and permanent phenomenon. Therefore, one should reflect on the foundations of identity, referring to the essence.

This phenomenon, continues Philippe Forget, who refers to the discovery of space and time, “should not be traced back to a substantialist conception of identity, but to an understanding of being as a play of difference. We are not talking about understanding identity as something immutable and immovable, which can be qualified and turned into a canon (…) understood as woven from differences, which is renewed and reborn in the fertile soil of heritage, consisting of a set of past experiences used to overcome oneself. In this sense, it is impossible and should not have recourse to the defense of forms of existence that are seized as something inviolable, rather efforts should be made to transform society. Adherence to the identity of established forms also leads to the extinction and destruction of the collective identity” (4).

No less than culture, identity is not an entity that can be frozen or purged by command. It is determinant only in a dynamic manner, and can only be understood by taking into account the interactions (or retrodeterminations), the choice to give up personal identification, and the identification strategy that underlies that choice. From the very beginning, it is inseparable from the habit of doing something or refusing to do something, in a specific cultural and social context, that is, in the context of relationships with others. Identity is thus always reflexive. From a phenomenological perspective, it implies that one should never separate “self” from “other”. The subject of collective identity is not “I” or “we”, the natural wholeness.

The difference that emerges is that which Paul Ricoeur drew between the idem identity and the ipse identity. The stability of collective existence in the face of constant change (identity ipse) cannot be reduced to the course of events and repetitions (identity idem). On the contrary, it is entirely related to the hermeneutics of the concept of “self”, with the perception from the position of narratology, designed to demonstrate the “place”, space-time, which produces meaning and forms the condition for finding “self”. From the point of view of phenomenology, according to which nothing is given naturally, the object comes from a fundamental development, from a hermeneutic narrative, which is characterized by the assertion of a point of view that retrospectively builds events in order to give them meaning. “Narrative constructs a narrative identity, shaping the identity of the story told, Ricoeur argues, “and it is this identity of the story that forms the identity of the character” (5). Defending identity, then, is not content with ritualistic recitation of historical milestones considered important, or chanting of the past in order to avoid confrontation with the present. That is, to understand identity as something that is preserved in the conditions of the game of various parties, not as something frozen, but as always the only way to change or not change. to avoid confrontation with the present. That is, to understand identity as something that is preserved in the conditions of the game of various parties, not as something frozen, but as always the only way to change or not change. to avoid confrontation with the present. That is, to understand identity as something that is preserved in the conditions of the game of various parties, not as something frozen, but as always the only way to change or not change.

So, it is not a question of choosing the idem identity against the ipse identity, or vice versa, but to accept both in their mutual relationship through an orderly narrative that takes into account both the perception of oneself and the perception of the other. To recreate the conditions in which it will once again be possible to reproduce such a story – this is what finding oneself consists of. But it is a feeling that never freezes, for the collective subjectivation constantly proceeds from choice more than from actions, and from action more than their “fact”. A people survives thanks to its ability to tell, appropriating being for itself through successive interpretations, becoming a topic for a story about itself and thus avoiding loss of identity, i.e. becoming an object for a story about another. “Identity,” Philippe Forget writes further, “is always an attitude towards oneself, a perception of oneself and others and oneself through others. By definition, it is a narrative about oneself, created in a dialectical relationship with the other, that completes human history and makes history the history of collectives. (…) It is through the act of storytelling that personal identity asserts itself and reconciles stability and change. Being as a theme depends on the narrative act. The personal identity of the individual, like the identity of the people, is formed and preserved through the course of the narrative, the dynamism of intrigue, which creates the narrative action, as Ricoeur says” (6) created in a dialectical relationship with the other, which completes human history and makes history the history of collectives. (…) It is through the act of storytelling that personal identity asserts itself and reconciles stability and change. Being as a theme depends on the narrative act. The personal identity of the individual, like the identity of the people, is formed and preserved through the course of the narrative, the dynamism of intrigue, which creates the narrative action, as Ricoeur says” (6) created in a dialectical relationship with the other, which completes human history and makes history the history of collectives. (…) It is through the act of storytelling that personal identity asserts itself and reconciles stability and change. Being as a theme depends on the narrative act. The personal identity of the individual, like the identity of the people, is formed and preserved through the course of the narrative, the dynamism of intrigue, which creates the narrative action, as Ricoeur says.” (6)

What is currently most threatening to national identity has, finally, a strong dimension, represented by a tendency towards the destruction of the social, that is, towards the internal disintegration of all forms of organic sociality. Roland Castro could justifiably speak of a society in which “no one else supports anyone”, where everyone rejects everyone, where every individual becomes a potential stranger to every other. And liberal individualism bears the greatest responsibility for this. How can one speak of “brotherhood” (on the left) or “common good” (on the right) in a society where everyone is busy striving for the maximum satisfaction of their own interests, plunging endlessly into imitative rivalry that takes the form of risk in the name of salvation , constant competition that knows no end.

As Christian Thorel noted, it is “fixation on the individual to the detriment of the collective that leads to the disappearance of attention to the other.” Meanwhile, there is a danger that the issue of immigration will obscure this fact from us. “The alienation of which migrants are victims can make us forget that we are increasingly living in a society where alienation is also the rule in relations between the “autochthonous” themselves. Why should the French support foreigners if they support themselves less and less? On the other hand, some reproaches should be addressed to themselves. It is often said that young migrants are full of hatred and that they should respect the country that hosts them. But why should young Arabs be more patriotic than young native French, who are far from patriotic? In the end, the greatest danger is to believe that the spread of selfish sentiments will encourage criticism of immigration (which is legitimate in itself) will, when it is the spread of such sentiments that most destroys the social fabric. The whole problem of xenophobia, however, lies in the belief that the strengthening of the national feeling is based on rejection of the Other. After which, as it has become a habit, it ends up being normal to dislike one’s own compatriots. while it is the spread of such sentiments that most destroys the social fabric. The whole problem of xenophobia, however, lies in the belief that the strengthening of the national feeling is based on rejection of the Other. After which, as it has become a habit, it ends up being normal to dislike one’s own compatriots. while it is the spread of such sentiments that most destroys the social fabric. The whole problem of xenophobia, however, lies in the belief that the strengthening of the national feeling is based on rejection of the Other. After which, as it has become a habit, it ends up being normal to dislike one’s own compatriots.

A society that is aware of its identity can only be strong when it puts the common good above individual interests, and solidarity, empathy and generosity towards the other above the obsession with competition and personal success. It can exist only when it adheres to the rules of unselfishness and gratuitousness, the only way to avoid the breakdown of social ties, that is, the emergence of an order in which a person produces himself as an object, having previously managed to turn everything that surrounds him into an artifact. Meanwhile, it is obvious that not through the preaching of individualism, even in the name of “struggle for life” (a simple reworking of the individualistic principle of “war against all”), it is possible to recreate an organic and mutually aid-based sociality, without which no nation is worthy of its name. It is impossible to find brotherhood in a society where everyone aims to “succeed” more than his neighbors. And it is also impossible to restore the desire to live like a brother by turning to xenophobia, that is, to the rejection of the principle of the Other, which ends with the fact that everyone begins to understand this Other.

Alain de Benoist, translated from French by Andrey Ignatiev


1. Historique? “, in Le Point, 14 December 1991, p. 35.

2. See works on this topic that effectively expose the myths of Suzanne Citron, Le mythe national. L’histoire de France en question (ed. Ouvrieres-Etudes et documentation internationales, 2eme ed., 1991) et L’histoire de France autrement (ed. Ouvrieres, 1992), whose authors, however, often go to the opposite extremes towards what they reject. See also for a different perspective on French history. Olier Mordrel, Le mythe de l’hexagone, Jean Picollec, 1981.

3. Phenomenologie de la menace. Sujet, narration, strategie”, in Krisis, avril 1992, p. 3.

4. Ibid., p. 5.

5. Soi-meme comme un autre, Seuil, 1990, p. 175.

6. Art. cit., pp. 6-7.

7. Le Monde, 17 aout 1990.


A New Evil and Opportunity in Canada

I am sure everyone has heard by now about Canada horrific new euthanasia laws that will go into effect in the coming months. If you haven’t you can read about it here:

Already there has been stories of Canadian hospitals already trying to convince their patience of killing themselves or as the liberal bureaucrats in Canada like to call it “medical assistance in dying.” Many of the patience that are being ask if they want to take their own lives are the poor, the elderly, veterans suffering from PTSD and now even minors suffering from depression . All of this being justified by the liberals in Canada as being the most “humane” and less expensive way of dealing with these vulnerable  people.

 Even if these people agree to have their own lives taken its show not only how the economic system is failing the poor and the most vulnerable in Canadian society but also how morally bankrupt the liberal system is. Not only because euthanasia is the way the Liberal Canadian systems deals with the sick instead of treating them to the end but show how little they care for the people who have served their country or the next generation that suppose to lead the country eventually. And the fact that some of these people do not want to live and the Canadian government and Medical industry is willing to help them take their own lives shows how nihilistic liberal society has become. Further showing that the liberal belief of the individual will meaning one doing whatever one wants too is completely bankrupt and is slowly destroying society.

While the situation may look bleak for many of my Canadian comrades but there an opportunity here. The fact that Canadian society has become so nihilistic that it gives dissidents in Canada a chance to create meaning in Canadian society and help those who are the most vulnerable in society whether it be through charity, providing housing or other means. The dissidents in Canadian society especially the socially conservative ones can show that there is more to life than ones own individual desires such as community, nation, work, and God. If dissidents can provide meaning, community, and institutions to provide for the Canadian people in their time of need then it is only a matter of time before the liberal system in Canada falls. Because the liberal system can no longer provide anything grand. As G.K Chesterton once said

“People talk about the impatience of the populace; but sound historians know that most tyrannies have been possible because men moved too late. It is often essential to resist a tyranny before it exists. It is no answer to say, with a distant optimism, that the scheme is only in the air. A blow from a hatchet can only be parried while it is in the air.”

In other words, it’s important that Canadians move quickly on this matter as soon as possible. Providing meaning and building institutions is the only way to destroy this evil.


The Collapse of Consent in Canada by Declan Leary

Eugenics and Other Evils by G.K Chesterton

Canada expanding assisted suicide law to include the mentally ill, possibly enable ‘mature minors by Ashley Carnahan

On the question of Russian imperialism By Nikolai Ustryalov 1916

The Russian Version can be found here

(Journal of foreign policy and law “Problems of Great Russia”, No15, October 15 (28), 1916, pp.1-5.)

Service to the motherland imposes on every thinking citizen the duty to find out the meaning of this service, to think over and justify its motives.

“Great Russia” is the slogan that today unites the broadest and most diverse circles of Russian public opinion. We are fighting for the honor and dignity of our native country, “we need Great Russia.” What is the real content of this slogan dictated by life, how are the basic conditions for its feasibility conceived, what is the essence of that ideology, the confession of which logically leads to it? Only then can the problem of Great Russia be solved when the very nature of its formulation is clearly understood. This article aims to outline certain prospects in this direction.


Faith in “Great Russia” is, first of all, faith in the Russian state. In other words, “Great” Russia can only exist as a state a. Both given “theories” and living facts of empirical reality equally inevitably lead to this conviction.

Humanity of the present historical era exists and develops under the sign of statehood. The life of modern “nations” is the life of states. And, of course, this phenomenon is not accidental, it is rooted deep in the nature of things. A people’s “personality”, a national “idea”, like any spiritual monad, requires a certain unity for its manifestation. We need a center of spiritual energy that acts according to goals, we need a formalizing principle of activity. A single integral beginning should hold together the complex diversity that the historical life of this or that “people” seems to be. And so the state was such a unifying, formalizing, fastening principle.

The state organization was born at a certain stage of world-historical development, when the lower forms of social life ceased to correspond to the degree of cultural age reached by mankind. Perhaps, initially, or at least in its original “idea”, the state was directly connected with the tribe, race, nationality. But over time, this connection has weakened significantly [,] and the state has acquired an independent, self-sufficient value. Unity according to the principle of breed, tribe, in a word, “physiology”, having turned out to be too narrow and poor, was replaced by a unity of a higher order. True, a homogeneous tribal core is also useful for a modern state; yet it is by no means a necessary feature of it. Even “nation” in the sense in which it is now commonly understood by science *), cannot be considered its constitutive feature. If theoretically it cannot be denied that a nation is capable of creating a state, then in reality the opposite process is observed incomparably more often: the state creates a single nation. Thanks to the unifying power of the state, groups of people that were previously alien to each other are coming together, drawing closer together, acquiring “many common, unique cultural elements and a common historical past.” So, for example, it often happens with areas conquered by an external force: years pass, and the population of these areas, which used to shun and hate their conquerors, gets used to them, sometimes even completely merges with them. In this regard, the tragic example of Poland, which is now before our eyes, is instructive and bright to the last degree: even if her soul is still one, but isn’t it threefold, like a body, in which he lives? Is it a secret that if the Russian Poles are completely devoted to Russia, then the Austrian Poles, in general, are loyal to Austria, and the Germans to Germany?…

In statehood itself, in the very “essence” of the state, there is obviously some kind of strong ferment capable of holding elements, sometimes very heterogeneous, in sovereign unity. The state of modernity embodies in itself a whole complex set of various national, racial, ethnographically, historically and culturally unique features, permeates the diverse content with a single creative form, combines individual elements into a kind of higher synthesis, and under the sign of this synthesis reveals itself to humanity and world history.

States are the same organisms endowed with soul and body, spiritual and physical qualities. The state is the highest organism on earth[,] and Hegel was not entirely wrong when he called it an “earthly god.” It encompasses everything that is valuable in humanity, all the heritage of culture, accumulated over centuries of creativity. The state is a necessary condition for concrete morality; it is through it that Good is realized in life.

“Great Russia” must exist before all the state.

Meanwhile, it is well known that it was in Russian culture that it was very difficult for the ideas of statehood to achieve recognition. Not only the Slavophile line of Russian thought, but also its other currents often treated the state somehow unfriendly: either with an absolute, frank denial, or with hostile suspicion, or somewhat contemptuously, “haughtily”. This widespread hostility might even give rise to the conclusion that the Russian people are apolitical, stateless, incapable of organization, discipline, and law and order. However, such a sad conclusion was refuted by the fact of the great and ever-growing Russian state **).

Of all the “critics” of the principle of statehood, only Tolstoy was consistently and to the end consistent. Together with the state, he also denied any coercion, “condemned” even the whole “culture” in general, and, most importantly, he had the courage to deny “Great Russia” as well. His preaching acquired from this a significant moral loftiness and purity, but on the other hand it completely renounced the concrete situation in life, passed entirely “by life.”

The Slavophils believed in the “Russian idea”, but associated it not with the state, but with the community, the “world”, with the “Earth”. But their theory, which sharply separates the “State” from the “Earth”, must be deeply mistaken [th]. These principles are inseparable both in principle and in fact. The State is the Earth that has known itself in its highest unity, internally enlightened. The Earth without the State is an amorphous, inert mass, the State without the Earth is simply nonsense, a naked form, devoid of any reality.

The “spirit of life”, once sung by Khomyakov, forced Russia to take the only path worthy of a great people – the path of bold and broad state building. Despite innumerable external obstacles, despite some of our own national characteristics, we have created a powerful state organism: apparently, world history needs us, and it did not let us perish.


Within each state, a special culture is created, universally valuable, but individually colored; perhaps universally valuable precisely because of its individually unique coloring. All those elements, the complex totality of which constitutes the soul and body of the state, do not disappear in its concrete unity. On the contrary, the more perfect the state, the more fully and clearly they are preserved, giving the whole uniting them a specific, original look. Each power has its own culture, a number of special distinctive features that belong only to it. In this culture, as well as in these signs imprinted with the seal of individuality, lies the source of that charm that is inherent in the “fatherland”, “motherland” in the eyes of every citizen. Patriotism can be explained only through the highest categories of aesthetics,

Each state organism is thus called upon in its own way to fructify the historical life of mankind, to tell the world its own special word. Everyone lives by this “word” and strives to make it sound more powerful and louder. Everyone strives to make it sound to the whole world.

In the field of international life there is a profoundly significant correspondence between spiritual authority and external, political power. The development of the spiritual culture of the state is somehow intimately connected with the growth of its political power. This general law of state existence, confirmed by constant factual examples, was noted in the history of Russian thought by Khomyakov: “according to the secret (but perhaps understandable) sympathy between the spirit of man and the volume of society – we read from him – the very greatness of the mind and thought belongs only to great peoples” ***).

Yes, that’s for sure: great culture can be owed to power n o n o m u n a t i o n a l o n o n a l o n o d a r s t v e n o m

And from here, a practical imperative arises before each state: strive for expansion, be powerful if you want to be great! Here is not only the voice of a biologically natural and valuable instinct; here – the command of moral reason, the covenant and demand of the historical Spirit. Existing and due here coincide together, as two aspects of one and the same phenomenon.

Those nations that have already fulfilled their mission, whose “words” have already resounded, must die politically and give place to others. But “places” in world history are not given for free – you need to know how to take them, you need to prove in practice your superiority over the old holders and new applicants. To do this, first of all, you need to know yourself, your spiritual powers, the limits of your inner capabilities. For not infrequently, having overestimated themselves, the great powers also suffer grave wrecks. So it was with Napoleon. So it was with Russia in the era of the Crimean War. Apparently, this will be the case with present-day Germany. The state will to power must be regulated by the power of the state mind.

These considerations, it seems to me, justify the phenomenon that is now usually called imperialism. Imperialism explains many great events throughout the history of mankind. The idea of ​​imperialism underlies the policy of all modern states. This idea is vital and deeply fruitful.


To defend the principle of “Great Russia” and at the same time to deny imperialism means to reveal either an insufficient understanding of the principle being defended, or an undoubted inconsistency.

You have to choose: either outright cosmopolitanism (be it socialist, be it anarchist, be it religious), or state politics. Tertium non datur. World history follows the second path.

“The Slavic world is like a woman who has never loved and therefore herself, apparently, does not take any part in everything that happens around her. She is unnecessary everywhere, a stranger to everyone. But you cannot be responsible for the future; she is still young, and already a strange longing has taken possession of her heart and makes him beat faster.” So wrote Herzen in 1851 ****).

As for Russian statehood, this statement was not true even then. But it very aptly characterizes the mood that is widespread in the Russian public.

Isn’t it time for us to finally realize our love? Will not the world fire of our days ignite the eros of “Great Russia” in every Russian heart?…


The path of imperialism is the necessary and completely legitimate path of the great states. It needs to be openly acknowledged. Otherwise, that false note will certainly be heard in our ideology, which is compromising, first of all, for our own national self-consciousness. Is it possible to accept the understanding of the current war of the peoples as “a war against imperialism incarnated in Germany”, and in the corresponding interpretation of our enemy as “the enemy of the human race.”

Let’s be sincere and honest! Let’s be objective! Isn’t imperialism a specific characteristic of German policy alone, and don’t the Powers of Accord act under the banner of imperialism?

Isn’t the “will to power”, the “will to expand” characteristic of modern England? Consider the Anglo-Boer War. Let us recall the British policy in Egypt, in Asia. Consider English history in general. And it would be very naïve to assert that England does not know militarism: for what is the English fleet but the offspring of militarism, in any case no less formidable than its German brother and rival. Imperialism is impossible without a militant world outlook, without constant work on external might. England is too wise not to be imbued with the principle of militarism in our epoch. And if the island position and the general international conjuncture allowed her until very recently to be limited only to the cult of naval military power, then from the point of view of the fundamental difference between her and Germany it is impossible to catch. Both here and there – a sovereign policy, backed by armed power. Very instructive in this respect is the book of the English Professor Cramb…

Modern France is less typical. She is more tired of history, “Napoleonism” has exhausted her too much, she is now poured not so much centrifugal as centripetal force. But even she, obeying the basic law of state life, cannot remain in absolute peace, in complete contentment with her borders. Suffice it to recall at least her definitely offensive policy in Africa (Morocco), her active role in the Far East, not to mention her desire to reunite Alsace-Lorraine …

Let’s take our other allies. Japan is steadily following the path of great power. Serbia clearly proved its will and its ability to expand in the era of the Balkan wars of 1912-1913. In addition, it tends to the west, towards Bosnia and Herzegovina. Italy and Romania never concealed their state-national aspirations.

Finally, let us look impartially at ourselves. It seems that history has not offended us, we have nothing to complain about, our land is truly great and plentiful. However, let us recall the life of Russia over the last century. Constant expansion, multiplication of state property, constant growth, struggle … Poland, Finland, the Caucasus … Wars in the Middle East, Central Asian politics, war in the Far East … “Warm Sea”, Tsargrad, Manchuria, Vladivostok, Port Arthur … Nature itself forced us to spread in all directions: Russia is truly the greatest state, and therefore it has always been cramped within its actual borders. The next tasks were carried out – new opportunities, new prospects opened up. And corresponding theoretical substantiations of all these broad claims were always born …

And we have nothing to hide, bashfully keep silent about our great power, about our activity, aggressiveness. It is indecent for a lion to dress in the skin of a lamb. It is inappropriate for a Russian bogatyr to put on a mask of sham oiliness, to hide a sharp sword and a damask club under the rags of a passable kalika or under the cassock of a monk alien to the world *****) … Yes, we are a healthy nation, great both spiritually and physically. Yes, we freely strive forward, the will to power lives in us. Of course, we have no right to deny the same will in others. But if our primordial, natural path coincides with the primordial, natural path of another state, a collision is inevitable, inevitable, and attempts to avoid it are useless. Such clashes, for all their horror, are deeply fruitful: they create history, they burn the obsolete and give way to everything new, worthy of life.


All living things must be born in torment – such is the law, such is fate, or, if you like, such is the curse of our earthly existence. Rejection of torment is a rejection of life, of living creativity. If a nation harbors truly constructive forces, it is not afraid of suffering on the Cross: it sacrifices itself in the name of its “idea” and it will say its word at all costs.

World history appears to us as the arena of these constant contests between states, this constant competition of national “ideas.” Within each state, a continuous process of physical and spiritual growth, maturation, and finally death is taking place. The results of such processes inevitably affect the interstate life. Some figures give way to others, new factors of development constantly appear in the light. The “international order” is something temporary and deeply conditional – it is entirely conditioned by the actual correlation of the available forces of civilized humanity. And one should not make of it some supposedly sacred principle, a fetish, which it is a sin to touch. The internal state of one of the states, the figures of world history, will change in a tangible way – inevitably, automatically, and “

The “ideas” of cultural states intersect, intertwine in a peculiar way, and at the same time mutually enmity, compete, strive to subdue each other. This is a great, aesthetically valuable and fruitful struggle of different styles, diverse ways of human life. Each of them is legitimate and necessary in its own way, each in its own way expresses the universal, universal principle. But their mutual struggle is also truly necessary: ​​it is a guarantee that humanity is not frozen in place, it is the main factor of progress.

Every healthy state organism is attracted to expansion, to greater power, and each is limited by analogous impulses of organisms like him. Here the seal of some higher wisdom is clearly felt. Great wars, similar to the one we are experiencing, are, as it were, an impartial verdict of the historical Reason regarding litigations between earthly states. Judgment is being carried out on the peoples, on their aspirations, on their “ideas”. Organic changes that have matured over a certain period of time in individual states receive authoritative sanction in terms of world history. The external, “physical” appearance of the world is brought into line with its internal, spiritual appearance. Internally justified, truly legitimate claims are satisfied, internally false, empty encroachments (be it “offensive”, be it “


This is how the theoretical premises of the problem facing us, the problems of Great Russia, are drawn to me in general terms. The current war is a reassessment of the existing “international order” and, at the same time, a test of the physical and spiritual forces of modern state organisms. The results can’t be random. Its outcome is predetermined by the development of dramatic action throughout the entire chapter of the historical process that is now ending, and is conditioned by the objective meaning of this chapter. The war will end – the meaning will be revealed; not earlier: “the owl of Minerva begins its flight only at dusk” ******).

There is a struggle of various national-state “ideas” and “styles” of the modern cultural world. Each great power “defends” as much as it “attacks”, for each strives to keep its former property and, moreover, to strengthen it with new acquisitions. So far, England, Russia and France have changed the map of the world no less than Germany and Austria. Let Great Germany be carried away by the slogan “Berlin – Bagdad”, the image of “Tsargrad” persistently attracts Great Russia. If “Germanism” is justifiably proud of the greatness of its culture, then we must (and can!) oppose to it the no less majestic outlines of the still young, but already undoubtedly bright Russian culture. Oh, of course, here we still have a lot of work ahead of us, a huge field of activity, hard work on ourselves.

But in any case, we must not hide our nation-state aspirations in breadth. They are not a secret either for our enemies or for our allies. Let the Reason of history judge who has greater rights to Constantinople, who is more worthy of it: Turkey and Germany, or Russia. The “principle of the established international order” as well as the “national principle” are for Turkey. But the “Spirit of History”, I want to believe, is for us. Of course, much here depends on Russia itself. Will it withstand the great material and moral, physical and spiritual test, will its national genius rise to the height of the tasks facing him and already clearly realized by him?…

History seemed to be calling us to Tsargrad for a long time. Over the past century, this call has found a lively and at the same time quite conscious response in the “soul” of our country. The best Russian people pointed to Constantinople as the future path of Russia: national poets and publicists emphasized the deep ideological meaning of the upcoming “annexation”, active politicians took care of the practical side of the matter, and the Russian people made bloody sacrifices…

Moscow and the city of Petrov, and the city of Konstantinov – These are the cherished capitals of the Russian kingdoms

– so Tyutchev wrote back in 1848. He understood that Tsargrad is “the world destiny of Russia”, and was sure that the time would come when “the vaults of ancient Sophia in the renewed Byzantium will again overshadow the altar of Christ.”

“Sooner or later, Constantinople must be ours,” Dostoevsky wrote many times in the 1970s.

All modern Russian journalism unanimously professes and preaches the same conviction. The most varied theoretical views give rise to a single cherished practical slogan: “To Tsargrad!”

The Russian-Turkish wars fatally led us to the Bosporus. The best historical traditions of Russian foreign policy lead the same way. And, we will believe, the Balkan war of 1912 will be the penultimate stage on this path.

Soon, we’ll find out soon…

For now, the conclusion is clear. If the guiding principle of our political activity is the great Russian state, “Great Russia”, then the view so widespread today of the current war as a “war for European freedom”, “a war for the trampled rights of small nations”, “a war against imperialism”, ” war against German militarism”, “war against war” – with all this familiar ideology and phraseology will have to be decisively broken. For it is possible to consistently adhere to it only from the point of view of a narrow, cabinet abstract (although, perhaps, sublime) anarchic, cosmopolitan ideal, in other words, only by rejecting the idea of ​​the state, only by rejecting “Great Russia”.

N. Ustryalov.

————————————————– ———————-

*) “Nations are not natural, but historical and social formations … A nation is not something objective. A nation is something essentially subjective, that is, a property of a certain content of consciousness. A group of people who perceive themselves as united by a multitude of common, unique cultural elements and a common historical past and therefore different from other people, forms a nation. (Jellinek, “The General Doctrine of the State”, St. Petersburg. 1908, pp. 84–86).

**) This peculiar antinomy of Russian culture is aptly outlined by N. A. Berdyaev in his lecture-brochure The Soul of Russia.

***) A. S. Khomyakov, vol. I, Moscow[.] 1861, p. 227.

****) “The Russian people and socialism” (letter to Michelet).

*****) Only Alyosha Popovich did this in Rus’ …

******) Hegel, “Philosophie des Rechts”, Vorrede.

————————————————– ———————- (Journal of Foreign Policy and Law “Problems of Great Russia”, No15, October 15 (28), 1916, pp.1-5. )

The American Protectionist Economy of The Past and The Protectionist Economy of The Future

For almost the last 80 years the United States has had a free trade and global economy. Meaning countries do trade with very little restrictions on their economies such as no tariffs and government subsides.  This has led to globalization, outsourcing of American jobs, dependence on foreign countries, less regulations and unions, suppression of wages, the destruction of smaller producer everywhere, mass immigration of both legal and illegal migration to America and brain drains in developing countries. In other words, free trade has had serve negative effects on the working class and has led to corporations to globally expanded meaning they have more power over economies, governments, and the average person.

Despite the myth of America always being a free trade or even free market economy. The American economy was not always a free trade economy but rather was a protectionist economy that protected local industries and jobs throughout most of its existence. In fact, part of the reason why the American revolution was fought was because America did not want to rely on Britain for manufacturing and not be allowed to industrialize. In this article I will go over a brief history of protectionism in America, why it was adopted then abandon, and how we may return to a protectionist economy and how to avoid from making same mistakes.

History of Protectionism

As mentioned earlier the American Revolution was not just fought over unfair taxation but Britain also had enacted laws to prevent America from industrializing such as a ban on high value manufacturing in hopes to keep America an agrarian colony that produced raw materials for British industrialist to then sell those products to America. Basically, to keep America dependent on British industries. Many of the founding father such as George Washington believed the only way to be truly independent was also to be economically independent. The second law to be passed under Washington presidency was the Tariff Act of 1789 which put a 5 percent tariff or tax on all imported goods in hopes of encouraging the consumer to buy domestic goods.

While Washington enacted the first protectionist laws the real architecture of American Protectionism was none other than the first Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton a Founding Father and leader of the Federalist Party. Hamilton like Washington believed the only way for America to be truly independent was by having a protectionist economy that promoted industries at home. Along with having a manufactured based economy was the only way for America to compete with rival powers. Hamilton was not just a supporter for tariffs but even outright bans on imported goods and bans on export of raw materials that could be used for American manufactures. Hamilton also supported government subsidies for industries, key innovations, exporters, and inventions at home. These ideas would be favored by many American manufacturers and by Hamilton’s very own conservative Federalist Party which many founding fathers were members like John Adams (second president of America), John Jay, Rufus King, and John Marshall.

The federalist party largely represent the interest of the rising American industrial capitalist class that was largely located in the American North. However not all the founding fathers wanted tariffs or wanted a society dominated by manufactures rather wanted to keep America an agrarian economy. These interests were represented by the Democratic Republicans led by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe which represented the slave plantation owners and other large farmers that were largely in the American South. The reason why plantation owners were against the tariffs was because they were producers of raw materials like cotton, and food that they sold to foreign countries like Great Britain. The tariff would raise the cost of living in the south and cut into the profits of the plantation owners due tariff on Britain.

While the Federalist would only have one of their party members John Adams elected as president and would lose out to Jefferson Democratic Republicans. The Democratic Republican president James Madison (with Jefferson support)  would have to raise tariffs by 25 percent due to the war of 1812 that disrupted trade,  along with the government need for more revenue to fund the war and anti-British sentiments.    By 1816 the tariff had been raisin to 35 percent then to 40 percent by 1820. While support for tariffs remained high at this time the agrarian plantation class would oppose it again later in the late 1820s for many similar reasons as originally and seeing it as largely benefited the industrial capitalist who were growing rapidly at this time. Swallowing up the small family farmers and small manufactures which gave rise to big cities and monopolies in the North with industrialist having strong influence in the northern governments, that went against agrarian interest. While at the same time the protectionist economy did protected/ created American jobs, national security, independence and created new technologies and inventions at home just like Hamilton wanted.

The conflict between the industrialist protectionist North and slave plantation free traders South would continue all the way up to civil war. With the South prior to the war have some successes in overturning protectionist policies in their favor with the North conceding on some of the issues. However, this did not ease tensions and in 1861 Civil War broke out between the industrial North and the Agrarian South partially over the issue of Free Trade. Abraham Lincoln the president of America at the time was a strong protectionist. In fact, protectionism was his number 2 issue after anti-slavery. The South led by Jefferson Davis made free trade there second major issue after pro slavery with free trade being mandated in the Confederacy constitution. As everyone knows the Industrial North ended up winning the civil war in 1865 and Lincoln not only ended slavery but left a strong protectionist legacy amongst presidents all the way up to 1945.  

However, as a consequence of the abolition of slave plantation owner class allowed for industrial Capitalism in the North to expand to the American South. Quickly taking a part many of the small farms in the region in the last few decades of the 19th century. Centralizing wealth and power into fewer hands with the wealthy becoming more detached from the average person and their interest. This is seen by the poor working standards, low wages, price gouging, import of cheap foreign labor, bloody suppression of worker strikes, with holding of bank loans to small producers and widespread fake products. Not to mention major monopoly such as the Rockefellers that controlled entire industries such as oil. While some of this was minimized due to reforms and trust busts that started widely under Theodore Roosevelt in the early 1900s and did have some support from some major capitalist such as J.P Morgan. However, many of the large-scale corporation would remain and did not entirely stop the divide between the supper rich and everyone else. 

As the 20th century began the protectionist and isolationist policies of the US began to break down. With the United States playing a bigger role in world affairs and with a capitalist class who wanted to expand their markets pass Americas borders in their pursuit of more profit. This can be seen by the presidency of Woodrow Wilson and his ideas such as Wilsonianism a form of liberal internationalism that became popular in elite intellectual and capitalist circles after the first world war and would later morph into modern Neo Conservatism and Neo Liberalism. It can also be seen in the rise of international corporation from within America such as United Fruit Company that dominated many parts of Latin America such as Colombia or Guatemala. Another example the  Ford Motor company which did business in the anti-capitalist Soviet Union being partially responsible for modernizing the country and helping to make a rival for the American Capitalist order (which Ford Motor is a part of) and later for that Soviet Union to use the poor conditions in Latin America created by United Fruit company and other corporations to foster communist revolutions all throughout the continent that could of lead to the American capitalist own downfall, born out of their own greed. However, we are jumping ahead of ourselves as American government was still supporting protectionist policies and went back to isolation after Wilson left office.  And in 1922 tariffs were raised again to 50 percent with the Fordney-McCumber Tariff Act.  Another tariff was passed in 1930 called the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 raised tariff up to 60 percent. Being the last major American tariff of the 20th century.

When America entered World War 2 after the attack on Pearl Harbor in December of 1941. America became involved with world affairs again and this time did not go back into isolation or protectionism. With the economies of Europe and East Asia being destroyed due to the war, made America into a world power. Which gave the American capitalist class a reason to expand into new markets in western Europe and parts of east Asia to not only to make more profit but also to counter act the Soviet Union which was also a rising power that threaten America newfound power and influence on the world stage.

In October of 1947 the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade was signed by the United States and other countries which promoted international trade and elimination of tariffs and other trade barriers. Tariffs were largely reduced in America along with other government regulation. The reason why so many major American capitalist wanted to go global was because they would have more markets to make profit, more resources and have a cheaper work force and resources outside the US.  US influence and control in Western Europe only strengthened with the Marshall Plan which helped to rebuild Europe and the formation of military alliance known as NATO also strengthen the US influence in Europe. The Rockefeller foundation would also start to advocate for more trade relations with China in hopes of expanding their own market.  In 1979 American government in hopes of splitting the communist bloc and making cheaper goods signed a trade agreement with China which began the outsourcing of jobs and US dependence on China on certain industries such as medicine, machinery, electricity, and textiles. America would also start to rely on other countries like Saudi Arabia for other industries like oil. In 1984 under President Ronald Reagan the predecessor to NAFTA the Canada US trade agreement was signed with Canada. Furthering America free trade policy and with Reagan economics further deregulation as a whole giving corporations more and more power. 

When the Soviet Union fell in late 1991 allowed American influence and international capitalism to expand eastward to Russia and other former Soviet states. For a time, exploiting Russia and the others for their natural resources until 1999 with Vladimir Putin coming to power nationalizing oil industry but still Europe and America still relied heavily on Russian oil and natural gas.

 In 1994 NAFTA was signed between America, Mexico, and Canada which caused mass outsourcing of American jobs to Mexico. The World Trade Organization came into existence which replaced the General agreement on tariff and trade. America would continue a free trade policy all the way up to Donald Trump in 2016. Who started to put tariffs on China in hopes of bring industries back to America. In 2020 many more problems in Free trade were revealed with the Covid 19 pandemic that shut down many countries causing shortages that still last to this date. Then the Russia Ukraine War started in February 2022 of this year causing more shortages especially of oil and natural gas.  Which gets us to the current crisis.

The Current Crisis: Karl Marx and Oswald Spengler The Predictors of Doom of Western Capitalism Through Free Trade

The crisis of free trade that has been building for almost 80 years and has accelerated in the last 2 years can be understand by looking into two intellectuals on the issue of free trade.  The founder of communism Karl Marx and one of key figures of the German Conservative Revolution Oswald Spengler. Marx approaches the issue through a class analysis while Spengler approaches the issue from a geopolitical or civilization analysis.

Marx unlike Spengler was a supporter of free trade not because he was a capitalist but because he believed that through free trade the world would be brought closer together and class divides would widen. In one of Marx article titled “On Free Trade” Marx states this on the issue.

“But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.”

If we look Mexico for example, we see that after NAFTA was signed many of small farms ended up going bankrupt due to government subsidies and tariff being cut. Along with not being able to compete with the corporations that moved into Mexico. This caused mass immigration to the United States which caused more competition in the American labor market and help to erode the traditional makeup of the United States. At the same time NAFTA created conflict inside the southern Mexico state of Chiapas. Which is home to many small indigenous farmers. An anarchist insurgent group called the Zapatista Army of National Liberation released a declaration of defiance against NAFTA which they saw as pushing them into more poverty. An Uprising would soon break out after signing of NAFTA. The conflict would last for 12 days until treaty was signed allowing Zapatista to have their own autonomous zone.

This was not first-time conflict t6hat had broken out over poverty, free trade and antagonism of foreign corporations’ control over the economy. In fact, as was stated earlier it was part of reason United States declared independence from Britain. There of course more modern example to like In Cuba in the 1959 which led to the rise of Communism in country. In Colombia in 1964 an insurgency broke out for many of the same reason with the conflict still going on to this very day. Of course, it’s not just leftist who are opposing free trade and globalization. In Russia in 1990s after the fall of Soviet Union many right-wing conservatives, nationalist, and monarchist banded to together with communist in defiance against the Neo Liberal Yeltsin government that brought Russia into poverty with its Neo Liberal Shock therapy economics.  In the United States Right Wing Populism has come to the stage with Donald Trump becoming president with similar trends taking place in Western Europe. Trump by no means an anti-capitalist was against free trade and problems it caused like mass immigration, outsourcing, and dependence on foreign countries most notably China.  The rise of right-wing populism in America in 2015 also came with strong anti-elite sentiments with strong antagonism of prominent supports of globalism like George Soros and Hillary Clinton. While Marx was correct that with free trade would create more antagonism with the ruling capitalist. However, he was wrong to believe that it would solely be a class conflict as many of these movements even the left-wing ones embrace forms of Nationalism or localism (in case of the Zapatistas) and sought the liberation of their countries from foreign influences. Some of the left-wing ones even embraced religion and social conservatism like the Sandinista in Nicaragua which Marx would see as backwards. Not to mention many of the left-wing uprising happened in agrarian countries or regions like Chiapas, Colombia, and Nicaragua. Not in industrial countries where Marx predicted.

Marx also did not take into account other classes that could become prominent with free trade. This class being the Drug Cartels or what I like to call the Narco Aristocrats. With the opening of borders, outsourcing of jobs and some places poverty that was created by free trade gave drug cartels a chance to also become international. With Cartels being able to get more recruits and buyers due to the depression that free trade caused in some regions like Mexico or Rural Colombia in terms of recruits or Rust Belt or Appalachia in terms of buyers. Many of these cartel’s pull billions of dollars on drug trafficking alone. The money the cartels have allows them to form armies that do fight off the Mexican and Colombian militaries. And if the current crisis within international capitalism gets worse then we can only expect the cartels to only grow and possibly take control of entire countries.

While class conflict may have grown in the Americas due to free trade. In the East however with America and Europe having many of their industries and imports being based from countries like China, India, Russia, and Saudi Arabia. Western free trade has given rise to these Eastern countries to become superpowers like in the case of China and Russia and Regional power who also have major effects on the world economy nevertheless like Saudi Arabia. This of course is more in line with Oswald Spengler view of the destruction of Western capitalism than it is with Karl Marx. In Man and Technics Spengler warned that western technological capitalism was not only destroying everything that was natural but was also moving many industries to East Asian countries for profit and that this would eventually give these East Asian countries the economic power to rival the West. This is especially true for China which has the second largest economy in world partially due to Chinese state intervention and the outsourcing of western industries to China.

The importance of China and other eastern countries economy can be seen from the last two years alone. With China shutting down for Covid which caused masses trade distributions and shortages in America and the world. To Russia oil and natural gas being sanctioned by western countries due to the war in Ukraine which has caused a shortage of fossil fuels and the price of energy to increase. Not to mention made inflation worse for many western countries. All this was also accelerated when Saudi Arabia and OPEC announced that they would decrease oil production by 2 million barrels causing more problems for western economies.

China, Russia, and others have also made economic alliance like BRICS and SCO which is now competing with many western economies and economic unions. These economic unions like BRICS contributes ¼ of world GDP and 50 percent of world economic growth in the last 10 years. The eastern countries may have used western free trade to their advantage, but they always saw America and its allies as threat to their own ways of life and sovereignty. Only using the Western capitalist short sightedness for profit to their advantage. Now that China and Russia no longer needs America and the West. Russia now and sooner or later China will start to begin (or already begun in the case of Russia) military operations to claim territories that were once a part of their countries, that play geopolitical roles that could be used against China and Russia if they remain under American influence such as Ukraine and Taiwan. This of course in the case of Russia has already destroyed relations with the West and when China does move on Taiwan will do the same as well but as we seen in Russia this will probably hurt America and its allies more than it will hurt China.

The Return to American Protectionism

All the problems that free trade has caused which has hurt the American working class for decades is now finally hurting the capitalist class too. With some like Black Rock CEO Larry Fink stating that globalism has ended due to Russia Ukraine War.  However, amongst more dissident elements of capitalist like Donald Trump has already started to move America away from free trade by not only implementing tariff on China but also on European countries like the UK and France during Trumps presidency from 2017 to 2020. Even Joe Biden the current president of United States who is staunch liberal internationalist who has lifted many of these tariffs has had to sign the Chips acts which provides 280 billion dollars into funding research and manufacturing in the US of semiconductors something that is needed to make cars and computers for example.  This is not stopping the decline of the US however as America is still in economic downturn and internal conflict is becoming ever more inevitable due to partially from free trade. Not to mention America is nowhere near an autarkic or economic independences.

We cannot rely on the capitalist class or dark elves of this class like Moldbug call them to make America economically independent again as they will always try to expand internationally in pursuit of profit at the expense of the American people when it benefits them. Arguably many of these new protectionist policies are to desperately save Liberal globalism more than anything and these protectionist policies will be overturn if that is somehow achieve.

Hamilton protectionism had the goal of not only making America economically independent but also to be beneficial to American workers and capitalist alike. However as soon as it no longer served the capitalist interest, they abandon protectionism for free trade putting American jobs, sovereignty, and security at risk. America has resources to be economically independent and Hamilton protectionism does not need to be abandon but the more liberal elements need to be cast out of it. Important industries like fossil fuels and energy should be nationalize for national security reasons. The rest of the economy should be run by small business and coops that will be regulated by guilds where all members of a local economic sector like manufacturing for example will all be able to set prices, monitor trade, only allow local guild members to trade in a local area and would provide benefits to family if anything bad would happen to one of the members. Other concepts like family rights that base laws on how it benefits the American traditional family would be beneficial in protecting jobs and American interest. Only through the removal of the current capitalist class and being replaced by the workers can any of this be achieved.


America Was Founded as a Protectionist Nation

Free Trade Fallacy by Michael Lind

England’s medieval guilds

Medieval Guilds

On The Question of Free Trade by Karl Marx

Man, and Technics by Oswald Spengler

A lecture by Professor Michael Lind on Alexander Hamilton and Free Trade

24c. The South Carolina Nullification Controversy,cloth%20%E2%80%94%20mostly%20in%20the%20north.

Guild Socialism: A Plan for Economic Democracy by George Douglas Howard Cole


BRICS as a Driver of Global Economic Growth and Development by Badar Alam Iqbal,(US%24%204%20trillion).

The Problems With NAFTA by Kimberly Amadeo

Protectionism in the Interwar Period

Americanism and Comfortism By Ernst Niekisch

Original Russian and German text can be found here:

( from : Ernst Niekisch: European Balance Sheet,Potsdam: Rütten & Loening 1951)

The unconditional bourgeois economics of young America, unencumbered by any feudal tradition, soon allied itself with the aristocratic intellectual type of engineer; the types of priest and philosopher it adopted only as rudimentary appendages. The economic drive to conquer the world merged with the technical drive to overpower nature; the result was an economic and political momentum of unprecedented victoriousness. There was not a thing for which the price could not be found , there was no difficulty for which the necessary means and ways could not be found. One was in each respect the country of unlimited possibilities and what seemed impossible became possible. Old Europe always had a feeling for borders and the individuality woven into its own borders, that is, for qualities. Young America knows no borders, qualities are of no interest, they are outdated junk, consolation for those who immerse themselves in small things and have to discover charms in small things. Where there are no borders, you only have an eye for quantities, behind the vastness there is something else that lures, behind the big the huge, the gigantic. The small and the narrow are contemptible; one proves one’s healthy strength by not being crushed to the ground by any monstrosity.

This young Americanism proved its worth in the management of space on the one hand and in industrialization on the other. The businessman and the engineer work hand in hand; one finances and the other constructs, and where the prospect of a new job opens up, the technician also has a new constructive idea ready. Since there is no tendency to stand still, there is no rooting anywhere; the peasant is no more tied to the soil than is the industrial producer. The financier, the pure plutocrat seizes the reins; he’s pounding industries out of the ground where the location favors them and relocates them as soon as a better location beckons. The financial bourgeoisie that is emerging is rising to incredible power. She doesn’t flaunt her wealth, she doesn’t challenge it; she dresses simply; it involves the masses in the business through high wages. In addition, it forms a very special system of mass bribery, which represents a kind of earthly distribution of salvation goods and happiness in this world: it is comfortism.

Comfortism is the most obvious and probably also the most honest form of realization of democratic liberalism. He pays the bills that promised heaven on earth for all. Every citizen should have his own home with a vacuum cleaner, an electric cooker, a bathroom and all the necessities of modern times; the hygiene precautions are taken to the extreme in all factories, in bakeries, slaughterhouses and dairies; every job, including household chores, is done by machine. But above all: everyone has their car, their cheap fuel; the smallest employee becomes the ruler of the American expanse. comfort is all; the amount of comfort one enjoys is a measure of the culture one possesses. The comfort of external living creates paradise; the inner personality values ​​have sunk to nonvaluable, after which nobody asks any more.

You are a personality if you bathe and change your linen every day, observe all hygiene regulations and drive in your own car. Any social insincerity is smothered in the sea of ​​comfortism. Revolutionary is he who has nothing to lose but his chains. Those who live in comfort are careful not to be radical; as long as one has comforts one prefers to make oneself comfortable.

Comfortism is a powerful substitute for religion; he moderates dispositions by making happy. It is an effective reinsurance for the existing state of society; it creates a community of all those who benefit from comfort against those who question it.

It was no coincidence that comfortism, a means of mass appeasement and bribery, thrived in America; comfortism presupposed the abundance of natural riches that the “blessed” country has at its disposal and at the same time the intensity of the technical-industrial development that was expended here. Technology contributes the tremendous amount of labor that, in addition to natural wealth, produces the additional artificially-industrially conjured wealth that is necessary and must be mobilized to carry out the wholesale mass bribery on which the hitherto unshakeable American democracy rests. Genuine liberal pride in how gloriously far one has come is fed by comfortism: whoever the automatic escalator carries up, towards all peoples and people who cannot come up with such progress? One is a higher human being insofar as one has comfort: that is roughly the concept of culture in Americanism.


Translated by Mr. Z

His Telgram channel can be found here


Before determining the principles that will be used to determine the socio-political, economic and cultural development of the Turkic peoples of Asia and Europe in our time, we will need to briefly dwell on the methodology of our views on this issue, even if it is a short one. In order to eliminate any disputes and ambiguities, we must make it clear from the very beginning that we are approaching this issue (like all other issues) from the point of view of the materialist worldview and materialist philosophy. In addition, we attach importance to the more radical branch of this school of revolutionary philosophy, which is called historical or dialectical materialism. In our opinion, this branch of materialistic philosophy is the most accurate and scientifically sound system of ideas for the understanding of its important elements. Because only with its help it is possible to analyze the causes of (social) life events more clearly and realistically and to predict their consequences in advance. But, let’s also say in advance that we belong to the school of dialectical, or rather, energetic materialism; this does not mean that we blindly imitate the Western European representatives of this school (the so-called marxists or communists) and blindly copy everything that they know or present as a product of this school.

We do not do this for the following reasons:

1) In our opinion, materialistic philosophy is not an ‘exclusive commodity’ of Western European science. Because this type of philosophy, as a certain system of thinking, is formed in one way or another (Persian, Arab, Chinese, Turkish, Mongolian, etc. it has also been observed in many other peoples, moreover, long before the emergence of modern Western European culture.

2) Many of us, then before the Russian Revolution, had an energetic materialistic worldview. While this opinion was not artificially injected into our midst from the outside this is also as a natural result of the severe conditions of the cruel economic, political and cultural pressures of Russian nationalism and Russian statehood on us that decimated us.

3) Our adherence to the adherents of historical materialism absolutely does not require us to accept any intellectual object that they declare, as well as any intellectual object presented by the Russian and European monopolists of dialectical materialism, as something ‘sacred’, as if it were something ‘sacred’. A person can declare himself a thousand times a materialist, marxist, communist, or Leninist with the expression that is now fashionable in Russia. He can connect this with his strength and voice for the whole world. Hundreds and thousands of volumes of books can be written on hundreds and thousands of topics in this field. But still, even at a minimum, it may not have anything to do with real materialism and communism.

Let’s also give up their attitudes and actions, there may be no real revolutionism in their views and conclusions. For this reason, we dare to discuss the rights of monopolism over dialectical materialism, contrary to all expectations, although we do not take any obligations to them.

For example, the first is the issue of colonies… The second is communism, in other words, the methods of realizing a classless society where no one exploits anyone… The Russian communists and the Western European communists who follow them make obvious mistakes on these two issues… -not the liberation of humanity from the oppression of anarchy and turmoil–there will be plunder, poverty and death. When they criticize and vilify European capitalism and robber European imperialism, we agree with them, but not always and on all points. We are also in agreement when they raise the reactionaryism agenda of contemporary European capitalist culture. However, we certainly do not agree on the conclusions they draw from all these considerations and the prescriptions they offer.

In our opinion, the prescription they offer – that instead of the dictatorship of one class of European society (the bourgeoisie) on the world, is the dictatorship of its opposite class (the proletariat), which will not bring any significant change to the social life of the oppressed part of humanity. In any case, although there will be an objective change, this change will not be in the direction of improvement, but in the direction of worsening. It simply means replacing a less powerful and less organized dictatorship with a common dictatorship over the rest of the world of all the European-integrated powers of the same capitalist Europe (which must include America) over the rest of the world.

We present a different thesis against this. That is, the creation of the material basis of the restructuring of humanity is only possible through the dictatorship of colonies and semi-colonies over metropolises. For only this road can provide a real guarantee for the liberation and breakthrough of the productive forces of the earth, which are in chains by Western Imperialism. Based on this methodology, we create a certain system of questions, the answers to which will enable our main issue to be resolved correctly. These questions include the following topics:

1) How does the Turkic World as a socio-economic organism look in the economic and political system of the contemporary world?

2) What internal and external conditions are needed for the normal economic, political and cultural development of the Turkic peoples, all together and as separate branches?

3) In what ways can these conditions be achieved? Through evolution or revolutionary breakthroughs?

4) What should be the concrete methods of the work to be done in this or the other direction:

a) In terms of strategy and tactics?

b) In terms of organizational forms?


We believe that the place and role of the contemporary Turkic World in the economic and political systematics of today’s world is a very important issue. We can draw the solutions for the socio-political, economic and cultural development of the Asian and European Turkic peoples from this point of view.

Within the scope of the social and legal relations of the world, we cannot determine what and who we should be without understanding who and what we are and the content of these relations.

We can start the analysis of the subject from the second part, in other words, by considering the social, legal, economic, political and cultural systematics of the contemporary world:


The analysis of social and legal relations among the peoples of the globe reveals one point: The nations that make up modern humanity are divided into two hostile camps that are unequal in number, social and legal aspects. In one of these camps, there are peoples who make up only 20 to 30 percent of humanity and have taken over the entire globe, with all its dead and living riches below and above it. On the other hand, there are peoples who make up four-fifths of humanity and who belong to the first camp, groaning under the economic, political and cultural domination and slavery of the ‘master’ peoples.

The peoples belonging to the first camp, so called ‘civilized’ in their own civilized language, were assigned to save humanity from slavery, ignorance and misery… The peoples belonging to the second group are defined with ‘wild’, ‘native’ and such phrases in their language. According to the ‘scientific’ views of the former; “They were created to serve the interests of the lord peoples!” The natives and savages, on the other hand, could not come up with special terms to describe ‘civilized’ peoples due to the poverty of their vocabulary or lack of science, and chose to describe them only by using ‘dogs’, ‘bandits’, ‘executioners’ or similar obscene and incomprehensible adjectives.

The ‘civilized’ peoples of Europe and America, which extend to other parts of the globe and are generally called the ‘Western Peoples’, belong to the first category. The peoples of Asia, Africa, and the indigenous peoples of Australia and America, which were colonized by Europeans, also fall into the second category.

By examining the relations between these two groups, we have determined the following point: The relations of the Western peoples (metropolitans) with colonial or semi-colonial peoples are relations of complete/absolute slavery.

A number of historical and natural geographical conditions affecting the technological and cultural developments of the Western peoples have enabled the means of economic and cultural relations between the peoples in different parts of the world, in other words, international transportation routes and military strategic zones to be in the hands of these peoples. This situation laid the groundwork for the accumulation of all the initiative in their hands in the international political and economic relations between the peoples belonging to the Western-Eastern civilizations.

The technology and culture of Europe, during the struggle for existence at a certain stage in history, showed a stronger resistance and rationalism at that stage than the technology and culture of the Muslim peoples of Asia and Africa, who were the world masters of their time and who had fallen over them at that stage. and after the occupation of the necessary bases, they spread their influence to the Asian and African continents.

World trade routes, markets, and sources of raw materials, with minor exceptions, have passed into the hands of Western peoples. The peoples of the West have created their own national system of slavery—where the landed slavery(?) system under feudalism was actually a slave economy, and under capitalism, class oppression is nothing more than a form of slavery, the exploitation of man by man, but this time in a different way—to their colonies in the black and yellow continents. and gave an international character to this slavery system. Thus, the peoples of these continents have become, in effect, slaves who have no property rights over the wealth of their own countries and who work for the welfare of their ‘civilized’ masters (metropolitan peoples).


The capitalist-slavery character of the contemporary world economy has also determined another feature of it, the wholesale parasitic and reactionary character of the cultures of contemporary western peoples as the main factor of the developments in today’s world. The described features of the material culture of the metropolises reveal the following two issues:

a) Static Matter: The fact that the means of production and circulation of the consumption items necessary for the people have been monopolized in the hands of the metropolitan peoples.

All major means of production (fabrication industry), means of circulation (bank capital and its infrastructure), means of transport and communication (sea routes, railways, air transport vehicles, telegraph and radiograph), raw materials (oil, coal, sprouts, animal and herbal products) resources, as well as the sales markets of industrial products, have accumulated in the hands of metropolises with a population of 300-350 million. In this respect, the West, like a giant octopus, has surrounded a quarter of humanity and is exploiting all its vital resources. And this octopus is not just a sea octopus, but an armored octopus armed with the latest technologies of the West’s military inventions and martial arts… It is a striking octopus… It is a deadly octopus!…

Of course, these gains did not increase the courage and valor of the octopus. However, the cowardly cruelty and greed of the octopus has increased. The octopus now, by sucking the blood of the colonial and semi-colonial peoples, enriches the other, smaller part of the world’s peoples on account of the weakening, pauperization(?), degeneration and death of the larger part:

b) Dynamic Consideration: The Material Culture of the Metropolises is Parasitic and Reactionary for the Maximum Development of the Productive Forces of Humanity

This issue is closely related to the first issue and constitutes its continuation. Indeed, in this period we live in, what is the contemporary culture of the metropolises as the organizers of the world? What is it built on and where is it headed? It doesn’t end with being in character. The point is that the content of the material culture of the metropolises, in other words, the essential essence of all these ‘monopoly capitalisms’, ‘imperialisms’ and other social categories of Western society, is certainly not related to its form, but to its dynamics and specific development trend.

This tendency is the preservation of the existence and development of the contemporary material culture of the peoples of the West, the system of slavery and domination applied only against the peoples of the East (i.e., colonial and semi-colonial).

This can be explained not only as the exploitation of the natural wealth of the colonies), but also as the inhibition of the productive forces of these countries and the application of a restraining pressure against the increase of their material culture.

On what principles is contemporary Western culture based?

(Western culture is based on) The production and marketing of goods for metropolises and colonialists, in other words, is based on the principle of monopolism in the economic process of the world.

What is contemporary Western culture based on?

It is built on the prevention of the internal economic development of the colonies and semi-colonies, the absence of their national industries, in other words, the maintenance of the agrarian-peasant character of these countries, so that these countries would have to resort to the ‘help’ of the metropolises, that is, the monopoly industry of the world, in their economic activities.

The process of having to resort to the aid of monopolistic industry consists, in concrete terms, of the following elements:

The survival of the economy, which is the main element of metropolitan economies, with the supply of cheap raw materials, the invading policies of the Western peoples towards Asian and African countries as a source of raw materials, and all the other events that these policies brought with them, stem from this point: First, the brutal struggles against the remnants of independence in the semi-colonies and independence by the colonies. The cruel punishment of even the smallest attempt. The second is the incessant wars of competition for colonial possessions between the major national groups of the metropolises. In other words, the increase in social conflicts between metropolises and colonies on the one hand, and the origins of national conflicts between different generations of dictatorial metropolises on the other hand, are hidden here.

Ensuring that industrial products are manufactured cheaply

The development of production technology is carried out through the exploitation of industrial workers of the metropolises and auxiliary workers of the colonies. The existence of class conflicts in metropolises and the reasons for the emergence of class political parties based on these conflicts are hidden at this point.

  1. Providing cheap (profitable) sales markets for industrial products of metropolises

Related to this is the intensification of the colonial policies of the metropolises, not only to keep colonies and semi-colonies in their own hands and under their yoke, but also to retain them as permanent markets for the industrial products of the metropolises.

These policies cause only intensification of social conflicts between colonies and metropolises, and these conflicts become a primary international factor.

This last element of the development process of metropolitan material cultures is of particular importance for the relations between colonies and metropolises. Because this element is the main dynamic of the culture of modern western peoples and the main reason for all the social deviations that occur in the development process of modern humanity.

These deviations are obvious and only the blind and politically degenerate types can attempt to deny them. We can list these deviations as follows:

  1. Cruel and inefficient exploitation of the wealth of the world and especially of colonies and semi-colonies for the general interests of humanity

I think there is no need to prove this fact again. For, it is sufficient to look at the economic activities of the metropolises in their ‘homes’ and colonies.

  1. The irrational order of the world production process and the general circulation process and the consequent inefficient destruction of mass human energy.

Since the means of production, which are concentrated in the hands of the metropolitans, are far from the main sources of raw materials and world sales markets, it is necessary to transport the raw materials to the means of production and the products (goods) taken from them to the sales markets.

For example, the transport of wool and leather raw materials from Tibet, India or Afghanistan to Great Britain… Here it must travel back to its homeland, turning into cloth, shoes and other goods. Just like this, Turkestan or South Caucasus cotton (also Baku oil) first travels to civilized countries – say Moscow or Ivanovo-Voznesenski where it turns into knitwear or something else-, then back to Turkestan or the South Caucasus, sometimes further (Iran, Afghanistan, etc.) must return. In terms of the economic use of vehicles and human energy, the opposite method, in other words, converting raw materials into necessary consumer goods in their own homeland, that is, in colonial and semi-colonial countries, would be a more correct move. The means of production in these countries—which

it is possible to supply and reorganize from metropolises – all conditions other than raw materials, liquid fuel, unused and wasted human energy, as well as

the massive need of the colonial peoples for factory goods exists.

The goods in question will only be sent to overseas journeys according to the needs, no longer in their natural form, but transformed into civilized goods and in proportion to the natural consumer demands that will come from there.

  1. Human energy is spent massively and inefficiently in order to maintain the                 current situation and the current structure (that is, the irrationality seen in the world’s economic order and the resulting social deviations-injustices) on a continuous and regular basis.

This is manifested in the raging militarism of the West, by the incredible increase           in the internal and external protective quota of its land-sea and air forces. Western peoples are protected not only from all kinds of ‘yellow’, ‘black’ and other ‘dangers’ and ‘pan-isms’, but also from ‘one another’.

  1. Preventing the natural development of the productive forces (a large part of the world’s population) of colonial and semi-colonial countries, on which a clear social inequality is formed between the colonial and semi-colonial peoples and the peoples of the metropolis, and the civilized development of modern humanity as a whole is prevented.

The preservation of the reactionary economic and social orders in the colonial countries is in the interest of the colonial Western Imperialism. Because the bandit culture of the metropolises can only breathe and be developed on this background of backwardness. Keeping the colonial peoples in darkness and oppression is a real and vital need for the western peoples, who have been the prison guards of humanity in their historical development process. The reason for the social inequality between the peoples of the metropolis and the colonial peoples being exploited by them is hidden here. Although the peoples of Metropolises benefit from all kinds of civilization blessings, technology and science, the main mass of the colonial peoples is living in a half-starved and beggar life. Skyscrapers made of steel and granite on one side, sluggish and secluded barracks on the other. Cars, trams, buses, trains, steamships, and airplanes on one side, lazy mares, Noah oxcarts and chariots on the other. On the one hand, electric plows, tractors, steam mills, irrigation systems, artificial

fertilizers on the other side plow, shovel, pick and rake. On one side there is electricity, telephone, telegraph and radio, on the other side the absence of black kindling, kerosene lamp and plus all other things. Fine art, literature, games and laughter on one side, despair and darkness on the other, constant pain and tears. On the one hand, satiety, security and a life guaranteed in all aspects, on the other hand hunger, cold, misery, death and corruption!

Can we justify this situation? Can we accept all this as a normal situation and a normal order? No! And again no! This is the expression of the greatest social deviation and worldwide social injustice from any moral point of view!


Here, our analysis of the culture of the metropolises will be incomplete if we leave without answering one question in particular: Where did the culture of the peoples of Metropoles lead? And what is it about to turn into? These questions are closely related to the dynamics of the development of the culture in question, revealing one of its most characteristic and important features, which gives clarity to the perspectives of the development of the world in the near future. We define this feature as integration, in other words, the centralized integration of the national and material cultures of the peoples of the Metropolis. Is there such a trend? Yes, there are/is. 

In other words, the imperialist war, the revolutionary earthquakes experienced in Russia and other countries after the war, the “diplomacy” struggle between the different groups of the “victorious” countries today, the intense works exhibited by the different political parties of the western peoples… 

All this is nothing but a manifestation of the trend in question in various ways. This trend is taking place under the pressure of the following two contradictions:

  1. It runs counter to the core of the existing material cultural structure of the peoples of the metropolis (private-property or anarchist capitalism divided into national fragments).
  2. In connection with this, the conditions for achieving social freedom and national liberation by getting rid of the tyranny of the metropolises in the colonies, in other words, the national liberation movements of the colonies are gaining strength.

Let us consider the first contradiction. What is the most concrete expression of this? We can explain it as follows: the existing order, the current structure of the material cultural foundations of the peoples of the metropolis, will not allow them to exploit the colonial peoples regularly, without punishment, trouble and in the full sense in the future. The material needs of the peoples of Metropolis have exceeded the existing structure of their material culture. The exploitation of the lifeblood of enslaved humanity by everyone without a common plan and a central will does not create the desired efficiency in terms of efficiency, does not yield the expected maximum result, and brings with it various surprises contrary to the wishes of the robbers. It seems that the current system of exploitation of the colonies and semi-colonies and the rest of humanity is not enough to completely stop the blood flow in their bodies. They can retain their vital abilities. They can live and breathe and at times revolt against these abusers when they fight among themselves over the division of other people’s property. But… Can the Western peoples allow the ‘luxury’ of condoning such acts of the colonial peoples? 

Of course not!

Whether they want it or not, changing the internal structure of their material culture; The creation of a new, more advanced, more orderly and perfect economic structure occupies their economic agenda. 

And it can’t be any other way!

What is the peculiarity of the internal structure of the material culture of the metropolitan peoples in the current and passing period? This feature is built on two pillars: private property within nations, and private property among nations. In other words, the means of production and the wealth obtained are relatively dispersed, whether within the nation or between different nations. 

Let us consider the first issue, the phenomenon of property within the nation itself: what consequences does this issue yield in the process of development of the material culture of the western peoples? The first of these is the competition between property owners—that is, capitalists and their groups (trusts, unions, cartels, etc.)—and in some cases between different industries. They fight each other in pursuit of gains and greater profits, and a large part of their energies is devoted to this struggle. 

True… This competition is the only and essential principle of capitalism based on private property. It plays a progressive role in terms of accumulation and centralization of capital. But in an environment where there are colonies on a social scale and eager to achieve independence, such competition is a factor that reduces the ability of metropolises to exploit. For example, if any Englishman were to go to India to do business with a British capitalist organization, he would have to spend some of his own capital fighting a similar British organization, losing some of his strength and opportunities along the way. Of the English capital. The robbery scheme in India, due to the lack of centralization and cooperation at the national level, cannot provide one hundred percent of the results and efficiency that the centralization situation can provide.

The principle of private property brings with it another negative factor in terms of the power of metropolises, the class struggle arising from the inequality between the classes within the nation itself. Now in this environment, three political currents have emerged that reflect the ideology of the main classes existing in Europe: Conservatism, the political ideology of the big bourgeoisie; liberalism as the political ideology of the middle and petty bourgeoisie; and socialism as the ideology of the working class. 

The struggle between these classes, which actually and to a certain extent reflects their desire to seize political power, will in some cases weaken the oppressive power of the metropolises against the colonies. At this point, we can exemplify the defeat of Russia in the Russo-Japanese War in 1904. During this period, there was a class struggle within Russia that was evident enough, and the liberal Russian commercial-industrial bourgeoisie put forward some demands against the feudal-land bourgeoisie. The Russian working class had also revolted with political demands for both. This was the main reason why the Russians were defeated on the battlefield. As another example that proves the opposite of this example, we can show the victory of the renewed Turkey over the international imperialist gangs in 1922. There was a reason for this victory: During this period, rebellious Kemalist Turkey, which was a nation, was a whole formed by all classes of the Turkish Nation, united by the passion for national independence. The enemy front, on the other hand, was a volcano bubbling up national and class contradictions.

And we have to identify one point here: The class struggle and its development in the metropolises in contemporary conditions is still a factor that hinders the progress of western hegemony!

The second point we have reminded above; One such factor is the division of private property among metropolitan peoples, in other words, their material culture, which provokes national competition and struggle between these nations. The existence of this factor complicates the situation of the metropolitan peoples as the masters of the world, weakens the pressures they exert against the colonies, and provides the colonies with an opportunity for maneuver and a certain movement. How was it possible to preserve Turkey’s independence, revive Afghanistan’s independence, and increase the signs of independence in Egypt? On what grounds did the national liberation movements gain strength in India, Marrakech, China and similar places? How did it happen that some old countries like Poland were revived, and Czechoslovakia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Ireland could be established? Finally, on what ground does the acceleration of the national liberation movements of non-Russian nations in Russia take place? All of this has been possible thanks to the division of the material cultures of the metropolises. The fights of the peoples of Metropoles among themselves for the first place and for the world hegemony cause the oppression they exerted against the colonies to loosen and provide an opportunity for the political independence struggles of these last ones. 

Let’s come to the second contradiction, the liberation struggles of the colonies and semi colonies. Does such a movement really exist? If it does, is it really developing and growing? Let’s answer these questions in the language of facts:

Japan: Half a century ago, Japan was a semi-colonial country that was not very big. No one could not even imagine Japan getting involved in international politics. But once it began to wake up, it was enough to become the fearful dream of the Asian peoples and to easily ruin Russia, the gendarme of Europe and the notorious feudal imperialist. Not even 10 years have passed since war, Japan, after Russia, has been participating in the decimation of another European imperialist state, Germany. Is it long-term or not? For now, Germany has been derailed. Japan, on the other hand, forms a bloc against the United Kingdom, which also includes France, China and Russia. If these intentions are realized, Japanese will also try to form a bloc against their overseas neighbor, United States The future of the Japanese people obliges the opening of the Siberian gates for settlement, the opening of the gates of China and other countries for the activities of Japanese commercial and industrial capital. 

It is in the interests of Japan that the European imperialist states are crushed to shreds.

Turkey: What is happening in this country is well known even to the fiercest enemies of the ascetic Turkish Nation. A healthy national revival process is taking place in this country from the beginning. Those who did not believe in this process or looked at it with suspicion tried the results among themselves. The bayonets of the Turkish workers and peasants, the progressive Turkish intellectuals, who are devoted to the national development of Turkey, taught the necessary lessons to those who needed them and taught them how to think. Like how the Tsars of Russia succeeded in bringing down Kazan 400 years ago, this stronghold of the Northern Turks, and advancing towards the East only by passing through the corpses of Tatar fighters, today the Western European imperialists must defeat the Southern Turks – the Ottomans – in order to make their way to the East. Before the Western peoples spread to the east, was Turkey not subjected to their frenzied attacks? Western peoples have to go over the corpses of Turkish-Ottoman warriors in order to truly take control of the situation in Asia and Africa. The fall of Kazan in the face of Russian attacks did not happen in a day. The Russians attacked here dozens of times. The struggle between Moscow and Kazan, the two northern giants of the time, continued for decades until the invasion of Tatarstan. It was not easy for the victor to secure this victory. A guerrilla war between the vanquished and the vanquishers, full of brutal massacres and atrocities, continued for decades. After that, the resolve of Tatars was broken. Europe had to struggle for centuries to weaken the Turks and ultimately to take the Balkans, Egypt, Arabia and Mesopotamia from the Turks. The European rulers were not fortunate enough to intimidate Turkey. It won’t happen either… Turkey is alive and will live on. Turkey will not be content with living alone but will also give life to its old parts and the rest of the Middle East, which were forcibly torn by Europe. 

China: The Chinese People, the oldest of the ancient peoples on earth, slept for a long time. But Dragon finally opened its eyes. It is about to wake up now, awakening from its age-old slumber. For now, dragon is lying in its cave, busy straightening its numb joints. But it will be up soon. No one can keep it in cave anymore. What has happened in recent years shows that these people are on the rise. The Chinese People were able to make the 1911 Revolution. They could make another revolution. When the fragmented parts of China turn into such a steel fist after this revolution, Western peoples will find it very difficult to recover from this punch. The eruptions of civil war periodically seen in China are only the overture part of the great concert of the 400 million Chinese People. Tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands, may die in this bloody civil war of the Chinese People. However, these sacrifices are inevitable, and the sacrifices will not be in vain. Civil wars in China are an expression of the process of integration of the Chinese People. It will take a few more decades before this process can be completed.

India: India is also waking up. India’s recovery process is more painful compared to China, and this is understandable. India is the colony of the most powerful of the European bandits – Britain. But this ex-pirate will not stand up to India’s liberation movement, however terrifying it has been in past. British may delay the liberation process of India a little bit by pressure, purchase, provocation and diplomatic trickery, but it can never stop it. The liberation movement of India exhibits a fluctuating course. The rise of revolutionary tension is replaced by descents from time to time. But one thing is well known. Such temporary descents seen in the behavior of the People of India are only a respite, signaling that stronger and much more terrible waves are coming. We are absolutely sure that one day the liberation movement of India will overcome all kinds of artificial dams created by England and will affect the whole world. From the tyranny of the West the liberation choir is gaining strength with the movements of Egypt, Marrakesh and the Russian colonies. And these movements are in no way different from the liberation movements of countries such as China, India and Turkey. All of these movements are carried out under the slogan of liberation from imperialism, in other words, from the domination of western peoples. However, they may differ in form and tempo depending on the conditions of the countries and times. Strong or weak… Fast or slow… Stormy or calm… They can be large or small.

The Colonial Peoples of Russia: We shall not dwell in more detail on the movements seen in Egypt, Marrakech and other Asian and African colonies of the West. Because their main lines are well known. Here we will review the liberation movements of the colonial peoples of Russia. According to our findings, the liberation movements of the peoples in Russia’s colonies – Turkistan, Caucasus, Ukraine, Belarus, Finland and Mongolia – are clearly evident. The defeat of Russia against Japan, which caused the 1905 Revolution, enabled the awakening of the national consciousness of the colonies and oppressed peoples of this country. The defeats that Russia suffered on the Western and Caucasian fronts during the world war caused the 1917 Revolution and accelerated the liberation processes of these peoples. 

The separation of Poland, Finland and the small Baltic states from Russia, the establishment of Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, Kyrgyzstan, Central Asia, South Caucasus, Ukraine and Belarus and other republics, together with 10 autonomous national republics, which are constantly struggling for the expansion of their sovereignty rights, are the most tangible proofs of opinion. Even though the Pan-Russians and the supporters of the Pan-Russians, no matter what mask they hide behind the “democratic” or “communist”, they try to destroy this movement as much as they want and turn these regions into ordinary Russian provinces and weaken them, so far, they have not been able to realize their desires. In the face of the increasing activity of the nations fighting for national liberation and independence, they will still not be able to do it, no matter what tricks they use. Whatever they have done so far, everything is theirs.

It gave results completely opposite to what they wanted. With the establishment of the USSR, the Pan-Russians wanted to restore the de facto single and indivisible Russia and to reassure the Velikorus sovereignty over other peoples. Not even a year had passed, all the peoples raised their voices of objection against Moscow’s Pan-Russian centralist tendencies. (As in the meeting of the Soviet of Nations at the last plenary session of the Central Administrative Council of the Soviet Union.)

Moscow divides the Turanic peoples into various small tribes in order to weaken Turkestan economically and politically. But within two years at the latest, these divided parts of Turan will raise the issue of reintegration; they will establish a stronger, more powerful and orderly state. 

Today, Russia separates Mongolia from China and wants to “tame” this country in its own hands. Mongolia, too, does not seem to be too opposed to sitting on Moscow’s lap. But if this Mongolia manages to stand up on its own feet tomorrow and strengthen its own Kuruldan (convention), it is not clear what it will say to this situation.

Based on the experience of the last Russian Revolution, we come to this conclusion that no matter what class comes to power in Russia, no one can bring back the former ‘glory’ and ‘power’ of this country. Russia, as a multinational state and a Russian State, is inevitably heading towards fragmentation and division. The result will be one of two things:


This dilemma is a historical necessity created by circumstances. It is most probable that the first option will be realized. If the latter takes place, it will be only a steppingstone to the first. The old Russia, which today was rebuilt under the name of the USSR, won’t not last long. It is a temporary and temporary thing.

This is the last breath of a dying person, the last flutter. Against the background of the disintegration of Russia, the images of the following national states appear clearly and distinctly: UKRAINE (together with Crimea and Belarus), CAUCASIA (which can exist as an alliance of the North Caucasus with other Caucasian parts), TURAN (the alliance of Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, Kyrgyzstan and as the Federation of Turkestan Republics), SIBERIA and VELIKORUSIA… We do not count Finland, Poland and the small Baltic states, which are now separated from Russia, here.

The realities of the liberation movements of the colonies and semi-colonies are clear in this way. There are these liberation movements… They are real… They will progress and evolve!

The Conservative Case for Multipolarity

There has been a lot of talk from some countries about a multipolar world recently from Russian president Vladimir Putin to president of China Xi Jinping to Latin American leaders like Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua. We also recently seen the decline of American Liberal global hegemony from the fall of Afghanistan to the Gulf States deciding to cut oil production even after the US government told them not to, to seeing growing influence of China, Russia, and India on the world stage and the growth of economic/ security unions to rival the EU and NATO, such as BRICS, CSTO, and SCO.

What is exactly Multipolarity? First, we should define its opposite Unipolarity. Unipolarity is a world where there is only one center of global power that controls were most of world goes in terms of economics, culture, and government. The best example of this is the 1990s and 2000s United States where the USA was the sole superpower that could spread its ideology liberalism across world with no major power preventing it and at the expense of those regions’ autonomy, and traditions.  The US could also decide the fate on what country would win in a conflict such as in the Gulf War and Yugoslav Civil Wars.

To many inside the American intellectual ruling class such as Francis Fukuyama believed that the United States had reached the end of history where the USA had reach peak of human evolution when it came to government meaning liberalism was highest stage of society and the rest of the world would eventually arrive to America “enlightened” ideals as well. Some within the ruling class and intellectual class like Irving Kristol the founder of Neo Conservatism or speculator and founder of the Open Society Foundation George Soros wanted to speed up this process by the US engaging in conflict and regime changes in countries that were illiberal such as Iraq, Serbia, Libya Iran, North Korea, and many more.

Multipolarity is the exact opposite of unipolarity. Instead of just one civilization pole of power that governs were the world is going. In multipolarity there are many civilizational poles that are not govern by the same ideology but rather each civilization will be based on its own customs, culture, religion, traditions, economics, and government model that will be right for their civilization. In other words, Multipolarity rejects universalism of all kinds whether it be liberalism or universalistic ideologies that seeks to dominant the world and force the world to go its way and nothing else.  It also means that multipolarity rejects the idea of globalization and one world government were peoples, cultures, and traditions are destroyed for a one world blob that has no identity.

It should also be noted that multipolarity is not bipolarity either were 2 great power control the fate of the world like during the Cold War in the mid to late 20th century. There will not just be two civilizations but 5 or more.  It should also be noted on what is meant by civilizations. Civilizations are large spaces that go beyond  the nation state where people in these regions share a history, religion, similar culture and in some cases a similar racial background. Some examples of these ideas are Pan Europeanism, Eurasianism and Pan Arabism with main theorist behind the idea of great spaces is the political theorist Carl Schmitt. The reason for these great civilizations instead of small nation states is because the smaller nation states will always be eventually dominated or must rely on the bigger nations because they have a lot more resources and military strength.

So why should a conservative support multipolarity? I think it very obvious that multipolarity is very much compatible with conservative ideals whether it be a Russell Kirk or Richard Weaver form of American Conservatism to someone from the German Conservative Revolution like Arthur Moller van Den Bruck or Ernst Niekisch. Whether it be multipolarity support for decentralization of world power, to support for civilization being based on their own traditions. To multipolarity rejection of universal capitalism and liberalism. Which is very similar to Russell Kirk Ten Conservative Principles particularly point 1 existence of enduring moral order, 2 adherents to customs, 3 principles of prescription, 5 principle of variety, 6 principle of imperfectability, and 9 restraints upon power. Multipolarity respects the ideas of civilization being based on there own moral orders, customs and restraint upon power on a global level were each civilization will put a check on each others power.  In fact, Alexander Dugin the main modern theorist behind multipolarity has taken influence from the German conservative revolution, have said positive things about all thinkers mentioned above and Dugin himself have described himself as a conservative on many occasions especially in 4th political theory which is an inherently a revolutionary conservative ideology that seeks to free the world from global liberal domination. Dugin has also written against nominalism like Richard Weaver and has admiration for the rural life. 

To Dugin Multipolarity allow all civilizations to keep their own traditions and preserve their own way of life. Along with having these civilizations to determine their own fate and destiny. We are already starting to see the countries supporting multipolarity returning to their religious traditions such as Russian Orthodoxy in Russia and Confucianism in China or are already traditional societies like Iran. As liberalism continues to wane, we expect not only multipolarity to continue but also with more traditional ways remerging, with a better understanding of avoiding the mistakes of the past. Social Conservatives of all stripes have everything to gain from a multipolar world coming about as it gives Conservatives a chance to preserve or revive their own customs, traditions, and not be under thumb of a liberal hegemon that has no respect for these ideals. Only through multipolarity can a Conservative world be born.  


The Theory of a Multipolar World by Alexander Dugin

4th Political Theory by Alexander Dugin

10 Conservative Principles by Russell Kirk


The End of History? By Francis Fukuyama

Putin Says formation of multipolar world is irreversible


Return to orthodoxy in Russia

Return of Confucius in China

China state media CGTN promoting Confucius

Other Russia E.V. Limonov 100 Question 2022 Version Plus Additional Questions

The original Russian version can be found here

Questions to the National Bolsheviks: Answers-2022

Any significant political association raises a lot of questions, rumors and comments addressed to it. At the end of August 2012, we decided to collect 100 questions related to the activities of the National Bolsheviks movement and give an answer to them. In order for the questions to be sharp and topical, we asked Vkontakte users to ask them. Questions were received and answers given. Ten years later, in March 2022, we released an updated version of the answers to the questions, adapted to the existing reality.

1. How the National Bolsheviks relate to the Donbass war

It was a Russian national uprising that was merged by the Putin government. Not only the citizens of Russia, who hoped for the return of Russian territories, were deceived, but also the residents of Novorossia, which has been in limbo since 2014.

2. What is your attitude towards the military operation of the Russian armed forces in Ukraine in 2022. The

war with Ukraine, pumped up with weapons and anti-Russian propaganda, was inevitable. In this war, we are on the side of the Russian army, on the side of the Russian soldier. Since 2014, Eduard Limonov has been calling for military intervention on the territory of Ukraine – then the weak post-Maidan statehood was easy to bring under control, and the Armed Forces of Ukraine would not have put up serious resistance. The authorities did not listen to people like us, wasted time, so now the military operation is more complex and bloody.

Ukraine under the rule of Ukrainian nationalism will always be a threat to our country, it will be “Anti-Russia”. The threat must be eliminated, the transformation of tens of millions of Russian speakers into sworn enemies of Russia must be stopped. The ultimate goal of the war should be the annexation of the lands of Ukraine (all or part) to Russia.

3. What did the National Bolsheviks do to support the Russian people in the Donbass?
The forces of the National Bolsheviks gathered gum. assistance, material assistance to the families of those killed or wounded in combat operations. Volunteers were also sent to defend New Russia. Through the movement of the Interbrigade, created by the Party, in 2014-15. more than 1.5 thousand people from Russia and foreign countries went to war against the Kiev regime.

4. Putin annexed Crimea in 2014, which you have been talking about for many years. What are you dissatisfied with?

All the rest and the fact that the Russian regions of Ukraine did not go after the Crimea. Extradition of veterans of Donbass to foreign states, including Ukraine. Inaction in the Baltic and South Siberian directions.

5. Why did the Limonovites part ways with Zakhar Prilepin?

Zakhar Prilepin has been a National Bolshevik since 1996. At one time, the party respected him. But as Prilepin’s literary authority grew, he increasingly moved away from the National Bolshevik movement, moving to pro-government, protective positions. In 2019, he joined Putin’s ONF, which was incompatible with membership in the Other Russia party. In the future, Prilepin merged more and more with the state apparatus, continuing his degradation.

The National Bolsheviks are a patriotic and socialist opposition, and Prilepin’s projects of recent years are base, deceitful, commercial loyalism.

6. What types of membership exist in the party “The Other Russia of Eduard Limonov”?

Membership in the “Other Russia to Eduard Limonov” is determined by the actions of a person. After formally joining the party, everyone is free to determine the degree and form of their participation in the organization – from helping political prisoners and attending sanctioned rallies to direct action. Based on the degree of participation of a party member in the activities of the organization, his authority and position in the party are formed.

We need people with a wide range of skills: lawyers, programmers, designers, publicists, economists, photographers, video editors, drivers, military men, athletes and representatives of extreme professions with a taste for risk. First of all, we need capable organizers, political officers. We need strong hands, a bright head, an iron will (preferably all at once).

7. How does the modern party of Limonov feel about the Old National Bolsheviks?

The National Bolshevik is the National Bolshevik, old or new, it doesn’t matter. “Old age” is a relative concept.

8. Who can be considered the main ideologist of National Bolshevism in Russia?

Nikolai Ustryalov (1890-1937) should be considered the main ideologist of National Bolshevism in Russia.

9. What do you think about the state of the Russian economy?

Russia of the last decade has been in a state of economic stagnation. The growth rates of Russian GDP are lower than the global ones, but the indicators of social stratification between the “tops” and “bottoms” are high. Experiments to create a market economy on the ruins of the USSR led to the formation of a clan society. Our country is CJSC “RF” – a closed joint stock company with a narrow circle of beneficiaries, who mainly decide the issues of their financial well-being. Oligarchic capitalism with feudal elements has been established in Russia, where the overwhelming majority of the population has been thrown to the sidelines of life.

Large property is in the hands of a narrow stratum of the “elite” – businessmen who enriched themselves during illegal privatization in the 90s, or people from Vladimir Putin’s entourage, or government officials who, in fact, work not for the sake of the country, but for the sake of their own wallet. A small group of people have access to the levers of economic management, allowing only friends and relatives to “feed”

10. What economic changes in the country would the Party implement in the first place?

The state should be engaged in a new industrialization – the transformation of Russia into a country with a highly developed industry.

Priority should be given to both those areas that are called “industry 4.0” – big data, alternative energy, artificial intelligence, and traditional industries – mechanical engineering, instrumentation, agriculture. Contrary to the supporters of the free market, who believe in the saving power of competition, capitalism destroys market relations, leading to centralization and monopolization. Large transnational corporations operate on a planned basis. In the modern world, there is not a confrontation (and cooperation) between the market and the plan, but a fork between two versions of the planned economy – the corporative plan (corporate plan) and the state plan (state plan).

11. How do you feel about private property?

Within the current level of human development, we respect private property as a fact of personal and social life.

On the other hand, the National Bolsheviks intend to review the results of privatization and carry out a phased nationalization of the entire mining sector, strategically important large industrial enterprises, transport, construction, and communications. Effective business owners, in the absence of an obvious criminal trail, will be able to become hired top managers subordinate to the people, that is, continue to manage their companies. However, incomes exceeding average salaries by tens of thousands of times will have to be parted.

At the same time, it should be noted that we welcome social experiments to abolish private property, aimed at overcoming capitalism. Those who wish to build communism “here and now” will have the opportunity to implement their plans in a certain territory, but not to the detriment of the interests of Russia and its other citizens who are not ready for such experiments.

12. What will happen to small businesses?

Private businessmen tend to maximize profits while minimizing costs, which creates dangerous social contradictions. In order to resolve them, it is necessary to revive collective property in enterprises, which will coexist with state and private ones. In the history of our country, such property was realized as artels and cooperatives. Collective enterprises are owned by the workers themselves, whose power is based on the principle of “one person, one vote”. In cooperatives, the employee is not alienated from the results of his work, he chooses the management of the company from among his colleagues, and also participates in the distribution of profits. Collective enterprises make it possible to get rid of the appropriation of the results of the work of workers by the entrepreneur. The state will support the formation of collective enterprises – allocate them subsidies, provide preferential tax regimes. Comprehensive encouragement will be provided to production cooperatives that respond more flexibly to the needs of the population in the service sector and the production of consumer goods. They will help to avoid excessive unification and overregulation, characteristic of the Soviet economy.

Small and medium-sized businesses will be present in the country, but it is advisable to transform small businesses into cooperatives as much as possible. Modern small business in the Russian Federation is often characterized by increased exploitation of employees, ignoring the norms of the Labor Code, a bias in the use of the labor of workers without formalizing employment contracts. We will overcome this situation. Let’s make the policy of distributing profits among employees profitable for small businesses (not only profits are distributed, but also risks, the participation of staff in the fate of the company increases).

13. What would you do with those who support Ukraine in the conflict with Russia?

Supporters of Ukraine are of different persuasions. Among them are honest “pacifists” and pro-Western public and political figures who want Russia’s military defeat. We stand for freedom of assembly, so the Ukrainian public has the right to assemble peacefully and without weapons, to hold their actions. We do not support the cleansing of street politics, even if the views of the protesters are unpleasant to us. Another thing is that the agents of influence of the West are on a salary, so we do not sympathize with them at all.

14. Should China be Russia’s ally in the economic struggle with the West?

China is a tactical ally of Russia at a short distance, similar to what the UK was an ally of the USSR. After defeating a common enemy, relations deteriorate

15. Is modern China and the CPC line an example for Russia in terms of state building development?

Demonstrations of China’s success in terms of interaction between the private and public sectors of the economy, where private initiative is complemented by national interest, is undoubtedly interesting to study. But it is also necessary to take into account the specifics of the geopolitical position of the two countries, blind copying will not lead to anything.

16. Don’t you think that after the death of Limonov, the party should have dispersed, since before that it was mostly a club of fans?

No, it should not, just as the Roman Empire should not have disintegrated after the death of Otkavian Augustus or the USSR after the death of Lenin. Indeed, in both cases, the countries were a kind of clubs of fans of their leaders.

17. What are the main differences with the communists?

Communists are different, so it is difficult to answer this question in a nutshell. In general, the main problem of most communists is dogmatism and sectarianism. Communists, having in their hands the works of the 19th century (Marx, Engels), are trying to explain the processes taking place in the 21st century. Meanwhile, the world is changeable, and Marxism alone can no longer describe the fullness of social processes.

18. What economic policy do you consider the most acceptable for Russia?

We stand for the creation in Russia of a progressive socialist economy. Large enterprises will be nationalized, while small and medium businesses will remain in private hands. It is necessary to strive to achieve the economic autarky (self-sufficiency) of Russia. Only if the Russian economy is self-sufficient is it possible to actively enter world markets.

In foreign economic relations, we intend to start trading in rubles rather than dollars. This step will contribute to the elimination of the world hegemony of the American currency, to stop the humiliating dependence of the Russian economy on the globalist masters.

The economic system of Russia should be focused not on banking speculation, but on a person of labor engaged in the real production of goods and services. We intend to give free development to the trade union movement, which will defend the rights of workers before employers. The other Russia is the Russia of labor.

19. Do you support President Vladimir Putin or are you in opposition to him?

We are the opposition to the oligarchic elites that have been ruling in Russia since the early 90s. Putin is a kind of centaur, combining militarism with a commitment to the values ​​of his boss, Anatoly Sobchak. Attacking Putin personally for any reason is the style of the liberals, not the National Bolsheviks. Of course, Vladimir Putin is a representative of the same elite and the same classes that sell and betray our people. However, the problem is not only him. It is necessary to change not the frontman, but the entire Russian elite.

20. Why do the National Bolsheviks use the slogan “Stalin! Beria! GULAG!”, but at the same time stand for political freedoms? Isn’t that crazy?

The National Bolsheviks stand for a state that is as tough as possible on the outside, in protecting national interests, and soft on the inside – in relation to its own citizens. The slogan “Stalin! Beria! Gulag!” was used by the National Bolsheviks for a rally slogan in the 90s to annoy the ruling liberal circles. Since 2001, since the arrest of Limonov, this slogan has not been used by party members. For over twenty years now. The current National Bolsheviks are for political freedoms, against repression against modern dissidents.

21. How can one be against the authorities, but at the same time support the military adventures of the Kremlin?

We do not support the military adventures of the Kremlin. We want them to stop being adventures and become a consistent imperial policy. When a liberal is sad that Crimea is Russian, the National Bolsheviks are sad because the Russian flag is not yet over Kyiv.

22. What are the differences with the right, and are there any?

“Right” is a very vague term, as is “left”. Under the right one can be understood both football hooligans, and intellectual national democrats, and Orthodox banner-bearers, and yard guys in scarves with the imperial flag.

We welcome healthy tendencies in both the “right” and “left” camps. National Bolsheviks, within the framework of their ideology, combine adequate right-wing ideas (national justice) and left-wing ideas (social justice), while rejecting the stupidity, phobias and excesses inherent in these ideologies.

23. Is it possible to consider yourself a Russian National Bolshevik being in exile voluntary, but wholeheartedly supporting the ideas of National Bolshevism?

Think of yourself as anyone, if that makes it easier for you. We are against emigration without serious reasons (threat to life, threat of imprisonment), a person must remain faithful to his Motherland and share both victories and hardships with her.

24. How will the party function after the departure of the permanent leader?

Until the emergence of a new leader who can lead the movement, it will be managed collectively by the forces of the political council. The party has been operating this way since 2016. At the moment, the Party is led by the political council, as well as three coordinators – Mikhail Aksel (Moscow), Andrey Dmitriev (St. Petersburg) and Yuri Staroverov (Nizhny Novgorod).

25. How would the National Bolsheviks, the name of state power in their hands, solve the problems associated with the coronovirus infection?

Closing borders, mandatory vaccination and, if possible, temporarily relocating everyone to the countryside and summer cottages, those who do not have houses. The failure of vaccination is a direct consequence of the weakness of the administrative apparatus, which, instead of tough but necessary measures in a crisis, proposed some kind of vague practice – to transfer everything to the discretion of the governors. Because of this, anti-COVID measures were not implemented at all in the regions.

26. How do the National Bolsheviks feel about the current policy of the Russian government in terms of combating the epidemic?

It is ineffective and only angers people with half measures. There is no compulsory vaccination, but there are QR codes. They are fined for masks and gloves, but major political events of the authorities are held and everyone is without masks.

27. What is your attitude towards covid dissidents?

Rather negative. We do not deny the danger of coronavirus and the fact that vaccines reduce mortality from COVID-19. However, we criticize the social and economic measures of the authorities during the pandemic, trying not to delve into the stupid contestation of medical facts.

28. Is it possible for the NB to cooperate with the “leftists” in Europe, who perceive nationalism extremely negatively and in every possible way consider themselves tolerant and multicultural?

In modern Europe, which is considered by many to be an island of common sense, in fact there are no less cockroaches in the head than in Russia. If you are on the left, then automatically a supporter of tolerance, migrants and gay parades, and if you are right, then you are a defender of capitalism, the church, and dull conservatism. In such a coordinate system there is no place for NB.

Nevertheless, even in Europe there are sound leftists (albeit few in number) who are free from dogmatism. We are ready to work with them, as well as with adequate European “rightists” – those who are anti-American, stand for the rapprochement of European countries with Russia and a multipolar world.

29. At the beginning of the NB movement there was a powerful cultural layer in the form of poets, musicians, artists (Letov, Nepomniachtchi, Kuryokhin, etc.). Concerts, gatherings, Russian breakthrough. At times it seemed that the National Bolsheviks were not a political party, but some kind of underground party of radical intelligentsia. Do you want to try again? For the “Other Russia of Limonov” is perceived only as a political party …

Probably, someone is saddened by the fact that the current party of the National Bolsheviks has a much smaller field of attraction for cultural figures than at one time a bunch of Limonov, Dugin, Letov, Kuryokhin. But you can’t enter the same water twice, what was, was. Then, in the 90s, the National Bolshevik community really was more of a cultural project that existed in the mild conditions of the Yeltsin mess, when songs like “Kill the Bourgeois” from the rostrum of a rally were not even threatened with police detention.

Times have changed a long time ago, the 90s are over – it has become dangerous to be a National Bolshevik, and indeed a political radical in general, so many figures of the cultural front, accustomed to comfort, were blown away like the wind. In part, the absence of representatives of non-conformist culture next to the National Bolsheviks is a problem of cultural figures who have become smaller, too, whose real ceiling is to support the toothless bourgeois “white ribbons”.
On the other hand, after the death of Eduard Limonov in March 2020, Limonov Readings are held throughout the country – this is a noticeable countercultural platform for creators of the kind we need.

30. Do you have a clear and well-thought-out plan for coming to power and a further program of action that is adequate to the current state of affairs in Russia?

The political and social situation in Russia is so changeable that it is simply impossible to draw up a detailed plan for coming to power at the moment. As history shows, no one has been able to draw up and implement such a plan. It is an illusion that people like Lenin or Mao (for example) had a clear scenario for taking power. They just kept their finger on the pulse and were at the right time in the right place.

We have program guidelines that we follow, and we also have tactical goals. A program of action after coming to power is also available.

31. What was the reason for the creation of a new, already third organization – “The Other Russia E.V. Limonov”?

With the fact that in 2020, after the Chelyabinsk case, there was a real threat of recognizing the party as extremist and depriving its leadership of the right to create political organizations for a very long time.

32. What caused the choice of new symbols?

The creation of a new organization, as well as the need to preserve recognizable features.

33. How do the National Bolsheviks feel about the new war in Nagorno-Karabakh?

The war near our borders, which strengthened Turkey’s position in the region, which also showed the fragility of Russia’s international position. It is not a priority area as long as there is Donbass, although we acted on the side of Nagorno-Karabakh – we sent military correspondents there. The National Bolshevik Party was the only party in the Russian Federation that supported the Armenian side in repelling the Turkish aggression.

34. How do you feel about nationalism? and why NATIONAL Bolshevism?

The National Bolsheviks themselves are modern Russian nationalists. However, we do not define Russians by blood. A Russian is one who considers the Russian language and Russian culture his own, the history of Russia – his history, who has proved by his deeds his devotion to the Russian nation and does not think of any other Motherland and nation.
We are close not to narrow ethnic nationalism (and such accompanying concepts as chauvinism, racism, xenophobia), but to such ideological constructions as imperial nationalism, civic nationalism, and cultural nationalism.

In advance of the criticism of extreme nationalists who stand up for the purity of blood, we answer that

35. What is the attitude to labor migration?

Labor migration should be controlled by society. It is necessary to introduce migration quotas for professions that determine which migrant workers are needed and which are not. It is clear that Russia needs qualified engineers, scientists, doctors, but visiting builders, loaders, taxi drivers are not needed – and there will be enough of their own men if they are provided with normal working conditions.

National Bolsheviks against illegal immigration. We see its cause, first of all, in oligarchic capitalism itself, where business owners are more inclined to hire embittered semi-slaves from abroad for pennies than natives. Measures of state regulation are needed to counteract these processes.

36. Many National Bolsheviks cite fascism. Are there similarities between National Bolshevism and Fascism?

If we understand fascism as the dictatorship of corporations in one bottle with the suppression of dissent and totalitarian violence, then the National Bolsheviks not only do not quote fascism, but are its worst opponents.

On the other hand, in early Italian fascism, which was more rebellious, proletarian and futuristic, there is much that the National Bolsheviks like – the cult of the superman, the education of courage, anti-dogmatism, a bright offensive culture. Gabriele D’Annunzio and Filippo Marinetti are our people.

37. How do the National Bolsheviks feel about the creation of national schools? Migrants are screwed…

The introduction of national schools is possible on a limited scale, but the division of the entire education system along ethnic lines is dangerous, since it will contribute to the disunity of the peoples of Russia, instead of their unification within the framework of Russian civilization. We see the solution to the problem of migrants in schools from a different angle: limiting legal immigration and combating illegal immigration will automatically reduce the number of migrants, so the severity of the problem will decrease even without the creation of national schools.

38. How do you feel about the current education system?

The current education system does not suit us, but what is replacing it (fee-based education) is even worse.

We intend to reform the education system in the following way:
– Preserve free general education, ensure access to education for all citizens of Russia. Every student should be able to study any subject without any fee.
– Radically raise the prestige of school teachers. The school should teach successful people who should become an example to students. To increase the proportion of male teachers who are able to teach male education to young men.
– Revise the primary education system. The ten most active years of life spent at the school desk is too much. Education should be faster, and more close to real life. In addition to scientific knowledge, it is necessary to teach survival, behavior on the street, convey ethical and aesthetic standards, instill a taste for self-development and personal growth.
– As part of school education, real military sports training should be carried out, which allows educating the basic skills of military affairs without further compulsory service in the army.

39. Are rising Turkish ambitions a threat to Russia?

Are. Not only by increasing tensions in the border areas, but also by their fueled separatist sentiments among the Turkic peoples of Russia. The recent “Great Turan” project openly lays claim to Russian lands.

40. How should the future Other Russia react to military actions right next to the country’s borders, similar to what happened in Karabakh?

Direct intervention with the support of forces loyal to Russia.

41. How do the National Bolsheviks feel about the growing nationalist sentiment in neighboring republics?

This is one of the main threats to the peaceful Russian population, as it can lead to a new wave of anti-Russian pogroms, which we observed in the 90s of the last century.

42. How do the National Bolsheviks treat anarchists?

The attitude towards anarchists is ambiguous. Usually, these are funny and honest guys, but with a mess in their heads. An anarchist society is too naive a utopia to be realized in the coming centuries. Contrary to the opinion of leftists, people are not inherently equal. You can talk about the need for equality of opportunity, but there is no equality of ability. In any “powerless” and “autonomous” society, leaders, leaders, and authorities will quickly appear anyway. The same Makhno, although he called himself an anarchist, was in fact the Fuhrer of his detachment.

43. Are religion (religious beliefs) and sexual orientation important for the National Bolsheviks? Or the main thing is the struggle with the system?

Party “Other Russia” E.V. Limonova” is open to people with any religious beliefs. With regard to sexual orientation, we do not look into everyone’s bed, leaving such questions to the personal discretion of everyone. However, there are no gays in the ranks of the National Bolsheviks.

As for the evaluation of the activities of other movements, one must understand that completely different social forces, both close and alien to us, can be based on a religious basis. But only fools and provocateurs can make political capital by holding gay pride parades and other senseless LGBT antics. Those who try to create a fuss about sexual deviations are unacceptable people for us, both in their own and in the ranks of others.

44. Caucasian question?The Caucasus is a powder bomb capable of blowing up Russia. The solution of the Caucasian issue requires balance, accuracy, excess emotions are harmful here. “Another Russia by E.V. Limonova” intends to pursue a policy in the Caucasus based on the following theses:- The republics of the North Caucasus, which are part of Russia, are an integral part of it. Muslim peoples and Islam is also our country. Any attempts to separate the Caucasus, no matter who makes them, is a blow to the country, to the interests of the Russian nation and other peoples of Russia;- Recognizing the right of Caucasians to live by their own rules on their own land, we recognize the right of Russians to live in their own way on Russian territories. Ethnic crime will be suppressed. Anyone who, being a guest, does not honor the rights of the hosts, will be expelled, even though he is a citizen of Russia;- Wahhabi (Salafi) Islam, seeking to tear away the Caucasus, is dangerous for Russia. In the Caucasian republics, it should be opposed to moderate traditional Islam;- The political elites, on which Putin’s power in the North Caucasian republics relies, are deeply corrupt, in some places they are simply criminal. It is necessary to change this elite, the appearance of morally pure people in power in the Caucasus, patriots of Russia and their own people. These measures will undermine the social base of the Wahhabis, who are also fighting against luxury and the cult of consumption

.45. The attitude of the National Bolsheviks to drugs (alcohol, tobacco and hard drugs). Is there rejection on a dogmatic level, like the National Socialists?

We welcome supporters of a healthy lifestyle, among the National Bolsheviks there are many who refuse alcohol, tobacco in their lives, go in for sports. Self-development is an important building block of our ideology. However, flexibility is required in these matters, so we do not copy subcultures that are fashionable in certain circles and do not label ourselves (sXe, healthy lifestyle), we do not go to extremes. An energetic intellectual with an active lifestyle, keeping himself in a normal physical shape, but allowing alcohol and nicotine to a moderate degree is preferable to stamped “activists” under the slogans “Whoever drinks is not a Russian”, who instead of brains have only a horizontal bar, a yard party and Abibas sportswear.

46. ​​Maybe we should leave the “imperial ambitions” and let the nearest countries develop on their own?

They can be allowed to develop independently, as long as it does not interfere with the geopolitical interests of Other Russia.

47. How do you feel about the slogans of some nationalists: “Stop feeding the Caucasus”?

We believe that the separation of the Caucasus is impossible, but at the same time, infusion into this region should bring certain benefits, both economic and political.48. How does the proposed economic model of the National Bolsheviks differ from what was in the USSR, war communism again? No one has ever said that everyone will have three pens and two notebooks equally, but it is necessary to ensure relative equality of the population, create conditions for a normal life and self-development.

49. Attitude of NB to war?

From a philosophical point of view war is a natural state of society, the same as the world, not in vain in ancient mythology, the goddess of love Harmony was the daughter of the god of war Ares and the goddess of love Aphrodite. War ennobles people, awakens strong qualities in them, reveals the essence of people and things. The National Bolsheviks have always respected real warriors and have never been pacifists. On the other hand, we are engaged in politics, not abstract philosophy. Obviously, for Russia, as a power that has endured the horrors of the Great Patriotic War and possesses nuclear weapons, war propaganda and militaristic frenzy are sometimes too risky and ungrateful toy. In the 21st century, there are other tools of geopolitical struggle, such as economic, informational, cultural influence, although sometimes the great Russian soldier has to resolve political contradictions in the old fashioned way.

50. What should the National Bolsheviks do in the regions?

Develop party structure. Keep a finger on the pulse – intervene in regional conflicts between citizens and the authorities. At the same time, one must remember that the main political events take place in Moscow, so one must be mobile, ready to travel to the capital if necessary.

51. How do the National Bolsheviks feel about the separation of the North Caucasian republics from Russia?

Negative. The separation of the Caucasus from Russia will lead to chaos in this region, where radical Islamists will play the first fiddle, which will most likely be accompanied by international intervention. Do you want the Taliban or NATO to be in power in Nalchik or Makhachkala? We are not.

Ethnically “pure” Russia within the Voronezh and Vologda regions is not the ideal of the National Bolsheviks. To glorify such a castrated Russia (albeit one hundred percent “white” and “European”) with destroyed economic and social ties, surrounded by a territory of lawlessness, is not nationalism, but rubbish.

52. How do the National Bolsheviks feel about the secession of Siberia? And to the “Siberian Bolshevik Party”?

We consider separatism a destructive trend. Those who work for the collapse of Russia (not Putin’s, but in general), we are not friends, but enemies. With regard to the “Siberian issue”, we propose to increase the significance of this region by moving the capital to one of the Siberian cities (for example, Omsk), or by building a new capital in Siberia. This will “unload” Moscow and create a second pole of political, economic, cultural and social attraction.

We do not know what the “Siberian Bolshevik Party” is. Probably some local organization of little importance.

53. How do you feel about the Communist Party?

We respect ordinary members of the Communist Party. In the general mass, these are worthy people, in many ways ideologically close to us in their synthesis of socialist and patriotic ideas. With the rank and file members of the Communist Party, we stood and will stand together.

However, we note that the leaders of the Communist Party inherited the worst features of their predecessor – the CPSU. Careerism, cowardice, bureaucracy, narrow-mindedness have become the norm for these party bosses, clinging to deputy seats. Personally, Zyuganov betrayed the left-patriotic idea many times, performing small and large services for the Kremlin.

54. I have my own barbershop, will you dispossess me too?

Small businesses, service businesses, can remain in private hands. We are striving not for the complete nationalization of the economy, but for the elimination of a narrow oligarchic class that parasitizes not the body of the people, profiting, for the most part, from resources that do not belong to them.

55. What requirements do you need to meet to become a National Bolshevik?

Inner confidence in the correctness of the party and its ideals. Don’t pee. Be loyal to your comrades.

56. When will there be a revolution?

When the necessary situation in society develops. 80% of the success of a revolution is the situation. (There is also a troll version of “Next Wednesday, don’t be late. If it’s Wednesday and there’s no revolution, read it again”)

57. How do the National Bolsheviks feel about the Pussy Riot case and similar attacks on the church?

The hype around Pussy Riot overshadowed almost all other news for several months. Russian and world media, as well as VIPs, enthusiastically promoted punks, forgetting about hundreds of other political prisoners. Meanwhile, the Pusechek case has split both society and the opposition along religious lines, diverting criticism from the policies of the Kremlin regime.

It’s hard for us to evaluate the Pussy Riot case. On the one hand, the National Bolsheviks have always been opposed to political repression and demanded the release of political prisoners. The course of the trial of the girls and the position of the top of the Russian Orthodox Church, which did not show Christian mercy, causes our rejection and irritation.

On the other hand, the action of Pussy Riot in the temple is not appropriate in conservative patriarchal Russia, and therefore is offensive to millions of Russians. Disgusting and vile anti-religious campaign launched later by the supporters of the punks. National Bolsheviks respect the feelings of believers and do not arrange their actions in churches.

58. Can minors join your organization?

Formally, according to the law, a party can be a member from the age of 18. However, no one prevents adequate and mature young people who have not reached this age from participating in our movement.

59. Is the essence of nationalism of the National Bolsheviks lies in the preservation of the Russian ethnos, or in its mixing with other nations of the CIS countries, like the Eurasians?

The essence of our nationalism, of course, lies in the preservation of the Russian ethnos, but we do not go in cycles in observing the “purity of blood”. The cultural and civilizational unification of peoples around the Russian nation is our goal. “Great Russia rallied forever the indestructible union of free republics” is an excellent formula for interethnic relations, if you think about every word and discard the clichés.

60. Are the National Bolsheviks interested in protecting the rights of the Russian-speaking population outside the Russian Federation?

Yes, they are interested. For example, the leader of the Latvian National Bolsheviks, Vladimir Abel, is to this day one of the main defenders of the rights of the Russian-speaking population in Latvia. It was he who initiated the referendum on the state status of the Russian language. Recently, Abel managed to register the party “For Mother Tongue” in Latvia.

On the other hand, the National Bolsheviks in Russia actually operate underground, under the yoke of a police state, so we simply do not have the opportunity to conduct a full-fledged policy outside of Russia. And this is also the fault of the current government, which could use the “Limonovites” in the foreign policy circuit?

61. In fact, specifically, what is National Bolshevism?

In short and simplified, National Bolshevism is a synthesis of social and national ideology, it is the desire to achieve social justice in society, based on the interests of the nation

62. What is the difference between National Socialism and National Bolshevism? Isn’t the first a consequence of the second? It is clear that fascism and national socialism are different things, nevertheless, don’t you think that the people are more drawn to the “browns” than to the “reds”? Thank you.

The main differences between National Bolshevism and National Socialism (in the Hitler version) are as follows:
– The NB, unlike the National Assembly, are not racists. Belonging to the NB nation will be determined by the culture and actions of a person, and not by the principle of blood.
– NB are guided by the interests of the Russian nation, and not the abstract “White Europe”. Talk about the greatness of the Aryans, opposing the “Eurasian essence of Russia” is bad nonsense.
– NB pays more attention to the social problems of society than the National Assembly. Socialism for NB is a reality, not a formality.
– The NB honors the national heroes under the red flag who fought the Germans during the Great Patriotic War, and not the Vlasovites, Krasnov’s Cossacks and other Nazi underdogs.

As for the “browns” and “reds”, it is a very controversial question to whom the people are more drawn to. Young people tend to be more nationalistic, but the middle and older generations, especially in the regions, are more concerned about social problems, that is, the more left-wing ones shy away from open nationalism. It is better to say that Russia is a “red-brown” country, but certainly not a liberal one.

63. Your movement is for the rights of 14 year olds. Why is this needed?

We live in a world of old people who want to protect themselves from the energy of youth. Old people deprive the young of their rights, artificially dragging out childhood. Today’s teenagers mature earlier than their peers of previous generations. From childhood, they get used to assimilating a huge amount of information, early on they receive developed ideas about life, so they can quickly become full-fledged members of society.

At the same time, teenagers have no influence on the fate of the country. The state and society seek to destroy youth and prolong childhood to a ripe old age. They are afraid of the radicalism of the younger generation. They don’t need young passionaries who dream of changing the world.

64. How do the National Bolsheviks relate to religion in general, and to Rodnovery in particular?

Our movement is emphatically non-religious. We respect the freedom of religion of every person, just as we respect the atheist position. The attitude towards Rodnovery is calm, among the National Bolsheviks there are Rodnovers too.

65. Is cultural traditionalism included in the NB ideology?

We respect the cultures of different peoples, therefore we oppose cosmopolitanism, which seeks to make all the people of the world the same. At the same time, one must understand that culture must develop, not stand still. If we understand by “cultural traditionalism” a primitive copying of the customs of the past or the century before last, then this is clearly not our way.

66. Previously, direct actions of the National Bolsheviks (the Sevastopol action, the seizure of the Ministry of Health, etc.) thundered throughout the country. Why not now?

Because the state has liquidated the institute of independent mass media. Consequently, now they are not covered, and the result of such actions is only new cases, without the necessary media and public outcry.

67. Was Yegor Letov a National Bolshevik? Why did he leave the movement?
He was, he did not hand over his party card.

68. Who are your allies at the moment?

All real-life political forces in Russia, which are opposed, on the one hand, and patriotic, on the other hand, support Crimea as part of Russia, the DPR and the LPR.

69. Can National Bolshevism be considered a new branch of communism?

Historically, National Bolshevism adapted the communist utopia to the reality of the nation-state. Today, too, the National Bolsheviks are aligning all sorts of “-isms” (and communism too) to the standard of real life, so we can say that National Bolshevism is “common sense communism”, without clinics and chizuha.

70. Does the slogan “With a bayonet to the West!” Remain relevant?

We critically evaluate the policy of the United States of America, which has assumed the role of the world policeman. If it’s “anti-Americanism,” then call it that. At the same time, one must understand that until healthy nationally minded forces come to power in Russia itself, it is stupid to grin at the United States or try to bring down your anger on it with rallies near the American embassy. As long as the National Bolsheviks have no influence on state power, it remains only to watch the Kremlin fight the West, half-heartedly, inconsistently

71. What methods of combating illegal migration from the CIS countries do you propose?

The methods of combating illegal migration from the CIS countries, which we offer, are quite standard and fully fit into the mainstream of the European migration policy, which is successfully operating in practice in a number of states. These are the introduction of a visa regime with Central Asian countries, the introduction of migration quotas, large fines for employers for using illegal labor, and increased control over migrants by the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

72. Why did the National Bolsheviks prepare a coup in Kazakhstan in 2001? Why do you need Kazakhstan at all?

We believe that several cities in the northern part of Kazakhstan were given to him unfairly after the collapse of the USSR. This is not about the whole of Kazakhstan, but about its northern part, besides, Nazarbayev pursued a policy aimed at ousting Russians, that is, he contributed to discrimination against the Russian-speaking population.

73. What will the National Bolsheviks do, after the revolution, with the entire criminal regime?

The mildest measure for major officials and a number of figures is life-long lustration (a ban on the right to work in the legislative and executive branches), but this, of course, is not enough. A number of government officials will be prosecuted for corruption, embezzlement of the budget and other crimes.

74. Why does the party have autonomous control of cells and why not make control more from the center?

We are for the manifestation of the maximum initiative on the ground. We need independent leaders in the regions who are able to think with their own heads, ready to make decisions and bear responsibility for them.

75. How do you feel about the ideas of anarcho-communism and eco-anarchism?

The ideas of statelessness, lack of leadership, and the complete absence of hierarchy are alien to the National Bolsheviks. There are brave, worthy people among the anarchs, but our ideas are different. However, this does not mean that we are rabid statists, the state should be present where it is useful for the majority of citizens. In addition, anarchists reject nationalism and advocate a mixture of nationalities. We consider healthy nationalism and the preservation of our national identity as a natural phenomenon.

As for eco-anarchists, we have a positive attitude towards the protection of nature, but it is not necessary to combine this with anarchism.

76. Have the features of the commune of the old Limonov party with sexual comfort been preserved?

The notorious “sexual comfort” (a phrase from Limonov’s book) is not an element of the way of life of the National Bolsheviks, just as the presence of communes is not mandatory. Yes, and before it was not, by and large.

77. Are family-dacha-career still anti-symbols of a party member?

No, no one in the party is forbidden to have a family, money and other material benefits, while not forgetting about party tasks.

78. Is there a methodological basis for creating small groups, their educational program?

Our main educational program is the maximum involvement of activists in the activities of the organization, that is, specific practical deeds. You can study theory as much as you like, arrange round tables and seminars, study fashionable crap like NLP, but if at the same time a person cannot take time off from work to go to a rally, then all these trainings are worthless.

79. Attitude towards Marxism, dialectical materialism

Marxism in the period of its appearance was a fairly progressive doctrine, and to some extent it remains today, but the National Bolsheviks do not follow this doctrine as fundamental. Marxism is good for analyzing certain political and economic processes, such as the global financial crisis, but many of the provisions of classical Marxism are outdated today, society has changed, like the working class itself.

We do not consider Marxism as a fundamental doctrine, but as a purely historical method. The problem of Marxism lies in the fact that in Soviet times it turned from a method into a dogma and became completely clumsy. In addition, dialectical materialism is very interesting as a philosophical direction and answers the questions of history better than its opposite, metaphysics.

80. Policy in the field of culture in general and in the field of protection of cultural heritage in particular

In terms of culture, the National Bolsheviks put forward the slogan “culture should grow like a wild tree, and we are not going to cut it”, i.e. culture should develop freely, without restrictions, this will give her momentum for development.

The historical cultural heritage must be preserved, which is one of the functions of the state in domestic politics.

81. How do you feel about Alexander Dugin and Eurasianism?

As for smart people who lack action and will. The Eurasian Youth Union could have been an interesting organization, but it was swallowed up by the circles and the lack of bright actions.

82. Why are the National Bolsheviks often called fascists?

People are accustomed to calling fascists those they don’t like, this is not a new phenomenon. Despite the sympathy of some National Bolsheviks for the activities of fascist, Falangist and other similar organizations “The Other Russia E.V. Limonov” is not a fascist organization – we honor the feat of the Soviet people in the Great Patriotic War. May 9 is our holy day. But this does not prevent us from studying the experience of their activities and adopting individual practices and provisions that may be useful to us. Similar work is carried out in the left direction.

83. What is your attitude towards libertarianism?

An extremely bourgeois ideology that we do not support.

84. How do the National Bolsheviks feel about the renaming of Soviet place names?

It is negative, because the authorities are doing everything to erase the memory of the revolutionary past and prove to society that the revolution is terrible.

85. What does the concept of freedom mean for the National Bolshevik, what meaning does he put into it?

Individual freedom is one of the basic values ​​of the National Bolsheviks. We stand for both the basic set of democratic freedoms (voting rights, individual freedom, freedom of opinion, etc.), and for a deeper liberation of a person (liberation from the routinization of life, from philistine prejudices, from the cult of consumption)Historically, in Russia, the authorities pay too little attention to people, to the disclosure of their personal qualities, which is possible only in a free society. Even the Bolsheviks, whom we have a generally positive attitude towards, ended up giving priority to a strong state over a free person (although these concepts should go together). As a result, when the Soviet state reins weakened, people weaned from true freedom plunged into a new dope – a capitalist “paradise”, which many mistook for freedom. We intend to liberate man in every possible way. However, one of the slogans of the National Bolsheviks is “Nation and Freedom”. The nation walks alongside freedom, even ahead of freedom. This means that human rights and personal development should not go against the public interest. A nation without freedom is totalitarianism, but freedom without a nation is a direct road to degradation.

86. Do the National Bolsheviks support the creation of a new Constitution in Russia?

At the moment we do not put forward this task. The National Bolsheviks believe that it is first necessary to change oligarchic capitalism to socialism, and the constitution is a matter of dozens.

87. The attitude of the National Bolsheviks towards Kurginyan, the left guards and their supporters.

The attitude is negative. The leftists and other guardians seek to equate almost any protest activity with “the intrigues of the West”. They believe that a Russian person is so stupid and worthless that he can speak out for his rights and against the System only at the behest of overseas puppeteers, and not based on his convictions. In most cases, guarding is a form of Russophobia, contempt for one’s own people

88. Will the National Bolsheviks, having taken power, fulfill my dream of the birth of a new person (generation), as free as possible from the false values ​​of modern society, which humiliate and enslave a person and hinder his development? Otherwise, is there any point?

Of course, society must be changed, but this can be done in two ways – by force and by evolution. It is dangerous to build a society based on other values ​​through violence, which was shown by Soviet practice. In Soviet times, they tried for 70 years to create a new person, and in the end, the case ended in failure.

It is necessary to introduce new values ​​into people, to change their mentality with the help of non-violent propaganda. Human development should be given special importance, because the goal of our revolution is to change society, otherwise there is no point in carrying it out. In particular, it is necessary to develop the sports sector and promote a healthy lifestyle. There are many idealists in Russia, and we will listen to their opinion.

89. Tell us about your attitude to the tactics of power struggle like what Breivik did.

Breivik’s act is a sad result of the national policy of European countries, which, by launching an unlimited flow of migrants into the country, provoke nationalist-minded people to such actions. We agree that migration must be limited, since these people often do not comply with the customs of a given state, live on social benefits, or rather on the taxes of working citizens, that is, engage in social parasitism.

However, the very format of the struggle he has chosen is detrimental and harmful to politics, and we have never supported actions like those made by Breivik.

91. What kind of music do the National Bolsheviks listen to?

Cheerful and scary

92. What books by Limonov should be read for the first acquaintance with your movement?

“Another Russia, outlines of the future”, “Sacred monsters”, “Anatomy of a hero.” “Grandfather. A novel of our time”

93. Your movement has many decades. Why didn’t you win?

Therefore, throughout the history of the movement, we have been the main repressed political force in the country. Not only the central leadership of the party, but also the National Bolsheviks in the regions are being persecuted, not only in searches, detentions and criminal cases, but also in political assassinations.

94. Are you interested in your attitude to the personality of Adolf Hitler, and to the very idea of ​​National Socialism?

The attitude towards Adolf Hitler is negative, like all healthy people whose grandfathers fought the Nazis on the fronts of the Great Patriotic War. At the same time, it must be admitted that as a leader and as an orator, Hitler was certainly talented. If he was a genius, as some believe, then, of course, an evil genius, who ultimately brought only grief and suffering to his and other peoples.

We are partly interested in the idea of ​​National Socialism, although it is worth noting that the German National Socialists had different ideologists – there were Nazis who were hostile to Hitler (the same Strasser brothers), whose ideas we treat normally. The founder of National Bolshevism N.V. Ustryalov has a good book “German National Socialism”, just dedicated to this issue.

95. It is interesting how the DR relates to the nature of animals and their protection (all aspects), like real patriots with love or with macho pathos like some rightists, like music is not a thing.

We treat the protection of animals normally, if it does not turn into open schizophrenia.

96. Will the National Bolsheviks, if they have power in the country, strive to build a classless society?

The National Bolsheviks do not aim to equalize everyone socially, but we are in favor of the liquidation of the big bourgeoisie (oligarchy) as a class. Hierarchy and competition on a moderate scale are natural phenomena. We stand for equality of social opportunities, not social status.

97. Your attitude towards Alexei Navalny

Alexei Navalny is an ambiguous figure. It must be admitted that he opened a new page in Russia in the use of Internet technologies to expose corruption and mobilize protest citizens, becoming a real find for many who had not previously been interested in political life.

For a long time, Alexey avoided foreign policy issues – for example, he constantly moved from the topic to the question of whose Crimea. Not aimed at a Western audience. But then he broke loose and entered into an obvious conglomerate with foreign intelligence services. He was not forgiven for this back in 2020. The disclosure of the personal data of the special services is something that the old “chekists” at the top, veterans of the KGB, could not ignore. And now Alexei Anatolyevich will be completely trampled, war time.

We don’t want Navalny to win, but we respect his tenacity in prison.

98. What is Limonov’s Other Russia about the free sale of self-defense weapons?

Positively. Any mentally healthy citizen of Russia should have the right and opportunity to defend himself, his honor, family and home. We are convinced that the Russians are no worse than, for example, the Moldovans or the Balts (in their countries there is already a free distribution of weapons of self-defense)

99. Do you allow a violent change of power?

At the moment, this is impossible, and even undesirable, but if the country is overwhelmed by chaos and lawlessness caused by the degradation of the regime, if a “war of all against all” begins, we will not be pacifists.

100. What to do with the regions?

In Russia, there is an unprecedented over-urbanization for the whole world – the accumulation of people in just one city (capital). The country’s budgetary policy is structured in such a way that Moscow’s budget is disproportionately high. A situation has arisen when it is unprofitable for capitalism, for example, to develop the Tver region, Khabarovsk Territory or Chuvashia – more than 2/3 of Russian regions are not interested in big business. Why invest in the development of Blagoveshchensk or Pskov? Inconvenient logistics, no significant natural resources, but there is a poor population who are not at all able to buy a lot of consumer junk and at the same time do not want to work for a penny, like guest workers.

It is necessary to “de-Muscovite” Russia – to move the capital to Siberia, to create new political and economic centers.

A comprehensive approach is needed to the development of Russian regions — creating incentives for reverse trends, the movement of people from Moscow to the regions (both to the capitals of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, and to small towns, to rural settlements). Agriculture, first of all, should be focused on the domestic market, the priority should be the food security of the country

Additional comments

Gordey Limonov:

There are three questions:
1. Federalism or unitarism?
2. Attitude of DREVL to mixed (interracial) marriages.
3. Is ethnic nationalism and the definition of Russian primarily by blood acceptable in Other Russia?

UPD: 4. Multi-party system or one-party democracy of the Soviet or Chinese type?

5. Only article 282 of the Criminal Code is subject to cancellation? Or is it also expedient to cancel articles on insulting honor and dignity, insulting the feelings of believers, on Holocaust denial, on false information about the activities of the USSR during the Second World War, on symbols (while maintaining responsibility for damaging historical and cultural monuments), on LGBT propaganda (while maintaining ban on same-sex marriage?

6. Do you think it is necessary to lift the moratorium on the death penalty for especially dangerous categories of criminals (apart from super-corruptionists): pedophiles, terrorists, war criminals, serial killers?

Other Russia: 1. Federalism, but there are too many national republics, it will be necessary to reduce their number 2. Attitude towards interracial marriages is calm, we are not racists, culture is important for us, not blood 3. We do not intend to define Russians by blood, this is a dangerous, bad path , but we will not be “multinationals” screaming that “no Russians exist”. 5. 282 in the current extremely vague wording, it is definitely necessary to abolish 6. The death penalty cannot be introduced under the current rotten judicial system.

Egor: How do you feel about the music of the group “December” and what do you think about their civic position?

Other Russia: we encourage our civic position. The song “We will not leave our cities” is cool.

Pixel Bloom:

Good day, there are three questions:
1. What is the attitude of the party to the Kurds and their struggle against Turkey, on which side are you on this issue?
2. Is it possible to buy any symbols and literature of the party somewhere?
3. What is the attitude of the party towards the personality of Kim Jong-un, do you consider him a worthy successor to Kim Il Sung?

Other Russia: 1) the Kurds are cool, for decades they have set an example of self-organization and the fight against several superior opponents at once, it’s only a pity that in recent years they have put on cooperation with the United States, this makes it extremely difficult for Russia to interact with the Kurds 2. Limonov’s books can be bought in bookstores stores, prints with symbols can be ordered here 3. Kim Jong-un is, of course, a worthy successor to Kim Il Sung, stubbornly bends his line, does not bend under the West. Within the framework of the state model that exists in the DPRK, he is a worthy leader

Egor: How do you feel about the personality of Otto Strasser and his work?

Other Russia: with interest. There was something in tune with the NB ideology in the left-wing National Socialism, which was in opposition to Hitler.

Maxim Chokto:

Does the party operate on the territory of Belarus?

Other Russia: Active but poorly devolved

What Was The Original American Populism?

We often time see debates on who in American politics is the real populist some say Donald Trump and the conservatives’ others will say Bernie Sanders and his social democrats and there will also be those who say Marxism or Fascism are the true and real forms of populism. However, if we look at the original American populists of the 1870s to 1890s that being the People Populist Party, The Farmer Alliance, the Knights of Labor, National Labor Union, and the Greenback party we find there are many similarities with all tendencies but had many stark differences.

What united the People Populist Party all the way to the Greenback party was a strong resistance to monopoly capitalism, Banking cartels and support for cooperatives and preservation of family farms, craftmanship, artisans, shopkeepers, and local communities that where being displaced by the centralization of land and capital by corporations and banking cartels. They were also very localist, religious, had negative attitudes towards immigration and were agrarian in many cases. They were also very key on producers and workers owning the means of production not being controlled by large corporate or government bureaucracies which is the heart of original American Populism.

Like mentioned earlier the original American populism has some similarities with current forms of so-called populism but have many strong differences. For starters if we are to look at the Trump forms of populism, we see it shares its conservative and anti-immigration stances however Trump populism was hardly against corporate capitalism despite many elements of this class despising him. Not to mention Trumpian populism fails to see how corporate capitalism wants cheap foreign labor and how corporate monopolies destroyed small business and traditional social norms that original populist sought to preserve. Sanders shares the some of the anti-capitalist sentiments however if we get down to what social democracy is which is a welfare state which hardly opposes corporate bureaucracy which in many ways strengths it and removes support for more radical opposition to capitalism not to mention its strengths government bureaucracy as well.  Fascism shares its synthesis politics and support for unions however what separates American populism is the localist and anti-centralization sentiments of the populist while fascism is inherently statist. Not to mention the reason the original populist wanted to preserve localism and mass proprietorship/ ownership by forming cooperatives was not only to preserve their way of life and independence but also because mass proprietorship was seen as something necessary for democracy to survive and not have politicians be controlled by large corporate or banking interest while fascism is an inherently anti-democratic movement. Marxism shares many of populism anti-capitalist sentiments however Marxism believed that the small shopkeepers, farms, and others who made up populist were destined to be defeated by larger corporate industrial capitalism and centralize industrial production, the last one even being also a part of a Marxian socialist society both in theory and in practice seeing it as the progress of history. Populist were in complete revolt against this so-called progress of the centralization of productions which they fought against in name of keeping control of the means of production or in case of National Labor Union and Knights of Labor to regain control and to preserve their local communities and democracy.

I believe that it becomes obvious after looking into how the original American populist opposed corporate and government bureaucracy it becomes clear that both the Trump, and Sanders forms of populism are nothing more than shams that are used to rally up people to support one section of ruling class over another instead of abolishing both. While Fascism and Marxism maybe strong opponents of the modern system but would still lead to centralization of power that so many want to move away from. However, I do admit that some industries like media, social media, large scale industries that must be that way have to be under state super vision but can still have some form of worker control weather be through a guild or union like system. I also admit that the agrarian democracy that the original populist wanted to preserve is long gone and there no way of going back too it. However, the populist strong distaste of capitalism, bureaucracy, and their belief in mass proprietorship and synthesis politics is worthy of keeping. The populist also attempts to unite different economic disciplines and races is also noble and needed if a populist movement is to succeed and maintain a populist American society.

With the rise of populism in the last several years and the recent railroad workers union deal which despite its reformism shows that unions and workers still have some power by organizing, it is necessary for real populist and dissidents to make their ideas known and to disprove and comfort those of both democrats and republicans who espouses this pseudo populism. Along with those who espouse welfare reform instead of the producers and workers owning the means of production. If any populist movement is to succeed it cannot just appeal to one group or industry but rather must be far reaching appealing to small businesses, the working class, rural people, churches, students, people from the right and left and of all racial demographics. United against international capitalism and for national liberation of this country from this class. While this is a long stretch it is not impossible take for example the March 8th Alliance in Lebanon which is made up of Muslim, Christian, secular parties and parties from both the right, left and in between who only a few decades ago were fighting a religious/class/ethnic sectarian civil war inside the country many times fighting with and against one another. If they can put aside their differences after trying to kill one another I’m pretty sure we can too.


The True and Only Heaven Progress and Its Critics by Christopher Lasch

Conservatism Against Itself by Christopher Lasch

The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx Fredrick Engels

The Doctrine of Fascism by Benito Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile

March 8 Alliance – Wikipedia

A Railroad Strike Has Been Averted for Now. What Happens Next. | Barron’s (

Hungarian Workers Party Chairman Gyula Thürmer to 888: “Being left-wing also means protecting our national interests” by József K. Horváth

original Hungarian version can be found here

During the Gyurcsány government, the national element was completely pushed out of leftism – Gyula Thürmer, president of the Hungarian Workers’ Party, emphasized, among other things, in response to our question. He added: they did roughly what Adolf Hitler did in the thirties of the last century: he took the red flag of the workers’ movement and put the swastika in it. He promised everything to the people, the workers, and the workers, and then he didn’t fulfill what big capital expected of him. Something similar happened in Hungary as well. 888 interview. The Gyurcsányist left suffered a huge defeat on April 3. Can the same be said for the entire left?

Gyula Thürmer: In the 2022 election, the opposition coalition made up of parliamentary parties suffered a heavy defeat. This coalition called itself left-wing, thus trying to position itself in political life. In reality, however, he did not represent left-wing values. He has stripped himself of the values ​​that the average person on the street would think of as left-wing. He pretty much did what Adolf Hitler did in the 1930s, taking the red flag of the labor movement and putting the swastika on it. He promised everything to the people, the workers, and the workers, and then he didn’t fulfill what big capital expected of him. Something similar happened in Hungary as well. The swastika is also present here, because it reminds people of Jobbik.

Gyula Thürmer: That’s right. It can be said that way. Everyone who thought that Viktor Orbán should be replaced came together in the coalition. That was the only consideration in this election. They didn’t care about leftist values. Of course, it can be said that Fidesz has implemented a series of things that are the usual task of the left. From reducing utilities to family support and increasing minimum wages. What the Gyurcsányist left specifically attacked and wanted to eliminate.

Gyula Thürmer: That’s right, what they specifically attacked. Nevertheless, there would have been a number of things that they could have taken on. For example, we should tax billionaires, let the rich pay, spend more on healthcare, not develop private healthcare. Before 2018, László Botka entered the scene as a left-wing candidate for Prime Minister with the slogan “The rich should pay” , and then he was confused.

Gyula Thürmer: Yes, there were a few months when he was the Prime Minister candidate. This did not fit into their liberal thinking. They said that the rich should not pay.

Gyula Thürmer: That’s right. So they, the Gyurcsány coalition, suffered defeat, not the left in general. However, there are left-wing people in Hungary, there are left-wing feelings. In this election, the left was actually embodied organizationally and politically by the alliance of the Workers’ Party and ISZOMM. Others tried to run, from the Social Democrats to the European Left, but they didn’t make it through either, and in fact they didn’t have a candidate. In this duality, Tibor Szanyi, who broke away from the MSZP, is not the most credible personality as a left-wing politician. Why did you do this?

Gyula Thurmer: Leftism is a multifaceted concept. A significant part of this is embodied by the Labor Party. We are consistently against capitalism, the rule of capital and money. We preserve the traditions of the Hungarian labor movement and the good values ​​of socialism. But there are a number of other issues in which we are less at home. Starting from environmental protection, through green problems, to the problems of the European Union and much more. On the other hand, today’s world is so complicated that it requires multifaceted responses. Even on the left, a party cannot exhaust these answers. It is no coincidence that there are two parties on the right, Fidesz and KDNP. That is why we felt that content cooperation was necessary. But maybe there would have been no cooperation if the Fidesz government had not forced us to do so. Previously, in order for a party to have a national list, 27 individual candidates were required. We always had this, we were always able to start, we always collected the votes. Now it has been raised to 71. With this, we were excluded in the first place. That’s why we thought, let’s try the two of us, the two of us might be able to issue this 71. Is there a chance that this tandem will take the group in the direction of strengthening the national left?

Gyula Thürmer: Based on the experience of the past 30 years, I think that Gyula Horn committed the grave sin of teaming up with the SZDSZ, the liberals, against the left. He accepted their economic policy, the Bokros package and other hogwash. And AZ SZDSZ committed the grave crime against the right-wing, which it claimed to be, and then switched to the left.

Gyula Thürmer: Yes, it is. Gyula Horn needed a certificate to enter the gentlemen’s club. And the SZDSZ gave this proof to the world and the Hungarian people. The SZDSZ needed some kind of force that would bring them to power. It was a big deal. These two couples began to live in a kind of symbiosis. This led to the fact that the MSZP’s leftism was sharpened, and the entire policy of the MSZP became liberal. Under Gyurcsány, this got even worse. And instead of going back to the left, they switched completely to the liberal side. Continuing on the path of the SZDSZ to the extreme left, pushing the national element into the background.

Gyula Thurmer:Yes. In doing so, they tore up their own roots. And a party that eradicates its roots has no future. This is the reason for their death, and the current MSZP is also going in this direction. The other crime committed after Horn, especially during the Gyurcsány government, was that the national element was pushed out of leftism. All nationalities were considered bad, sinful, harmful, outdated and tried to replace this by mentioning pan-Europeanism, pan-Europeanism, transatlantic values, and similar things. This was a serious mistake. We have always said that we want a communal society, that we represent left-wing values, but the Hungarian people have to create them at home, in Hungary. Being left-wing also means protecting our national interests, traditions, and national customs. The Labor Party has done a lot in the last 30 years. For example?

Gyula Thurmer:During migration, for example, we clearly said that whatever the government says, we are still against migration. Even if they scold, it is because it is in the national interest to protect ourselves from illegal immigration. But we also stood up for national agriculture, national culture, and the national language. Absolutely: let’s protect the right of national self-determination in the cooperation of European peoples. That is why we rejected the EU’s attacks, and we will reject them. We also believe that a Europe of peoples and nations is needed. But we also made changes in historical issues, such as, say, Trianon. Trianon was not talked about during the decades of socialism. We used the 100th anniversary of the First World War to say: please, we were the losers of this war, and Trianon was a crime against the Hungarian people. Yes, we also keep the memory of this. And we have been laying wreaths at the World War I memorials in Trianon ever since. We consider what they have committed against the Hungarian people to be a great act of hogwash and an unfair step. In these matters, we tried to bring up the national element on the left. It is no coincidence that in our slogans we say that we are an opposition party, a left-wing party and a national party. We can use these three words to describe the Labor Party. Irrespective of this, the distance from the representatives of the national left, which appeared in 1990, after the system change, when the Social Democratic Party was put on hold from one moment to the next, can still live on. Making it impossible for Anna Petrasovits to operate. Can something be done about it? Is it possible to fight for a greater role for national left-wing politicians? A large number of left-wing people have a national sentiment and love their country.

Gyula Thürmer: He mentioned Anna Petrasovits and the MSZDP. The Social Democratic Party of Hungary was a historic party that undoubtedly stood up for national values ​​throughout its long history. It was a sin to waste it after the system change. This was a conscious process.

Gyula Thürmer: This was a conscious atrophy, they consciously made him a servant of the liberals. No one remembers it anymore, but in the mid-1990s, the Labor Party and the MSZDP, then led by László Kapolyi, now deceased, wanted to make a historic alliance. We agreed that we will run in the elections as an electoral party. We were very strong then, we would have given the strength, he would have given the confirmation that we were also members of the club. Still a historical party. We discussed everything, we even agreed on the program. And then László Kapolyi appeared at my place once and whispered:“Look, Prime Minister Gyula Horn called and said: there are two options. Or you create a new party with the Labor Party, that’s your business, but then you’ll have problems at the customs office because of your Ukrainian deals. Or you don’t create a new party, and then you can continue doing business with Ukraine, and the billions can multiply.”As we know, we did not form a joint party, he retorted, in exchange he could sit on the list of the MSZP in the next parliament. Unfortunately, the national forces in the MSZP, for example Katalin Szili, tried to go her own way, but she was not strong enough, and in the end she fulfills a respectable function today, but still only within the scope of Fidesz and the government. In this sense, he left the left. There were no other attempts. We were the ones who said that we stand for national issues. We supported the fact that the Hungarians living in our area were indeed granted citizenship. We think that we should continue on this path, let’s find our partners. During the elections, I noticed that now in 2022, a lot of people signed up for us. And they said that you are a decent, national, Hungarian party, we support that,

I think that the government would do Hungarian politics a favor if it allowed the national left to develop both organizationally and legally. It hasn’t hindered you so far, or has it?

Gyula Thurmer:The launch of 71 individual representative candidates is a serious obstacle to the establishment of a national list. We should be given media so that I can tell you what I am saying now. If I can’t tell you, a few people know, but a lot of people don’t. And now, in 2022, we have seen that we are no longer held accountable for the perceived or real faults of socialism. It’s not interesting anymore. volt. OK. 30 years have passed, new generations have grown up. There are those who don’t even remember the system change, because they weren’t even alive then. It is quite certain that today’s performance and today’s messages matter. A left wing relying on national foundations would be a really important part of the country’s balanced development. But we are also fighting this battle in the international labor movement. There are parties that speak exclusively on the basis of class and internationalism. What is their relationship with Chinese socialism?

Gyula Thürmer: We can acknowledge the Chinese type of socialism. The Chinese said that they are building a society based on their own image and customs, which they call socialism, and that no one has the right to judge whether it is good or not. This is for the Chinese to judge. We see a lot of good in the Chinese example. And especially the aspiration that each nation must decide its own destiny on a national basis. Despite the indicated obstacles, do the fourth two-thirds of Fidesz help the Labor Party function and possibly strengthen it?

Gyula Thürmer: I have been in political life for quite some time. Over the decades, I got to know many different Fidesz leaders. As they used to say: you have seen Lenin… János Kádár, Károly Grósz… You worked closely with them.

Gyula Thürmer: Hungarian politics has two veterans. One is called Viktor Orbán, and the other is me. There is no one who was here thirty years ago. The two of us are here, both of us in leadership positions from the first minute. I think there are pragmatically thinking people among the civil forces who say that we don’t particularly want socialism because we don’t like socialism, but the Labor Party is a normal-thinking, national party. That’s why we tolerate him, let him run in the elections. It might even benefit us. Then there are those who don’t even want to hear the word labor party, communist, or socialist, and are totally opposed to our presence at all.

We experienced this in the 2022 elections as well. We collected signatures on the street. Sometimes we had the Fidesz-KDNP tent next to us, we greeted each other and shook hands, but there were cities where they were quite hostile towards us.

In my opinion, the pragmatic relationship is the right one. We are not in love with Fidesz either, but we said that we support what Fidesz, the government, does good for the people. Be it family support, utility reduction, opening to the east or anything else. We will not support what we think harms the people and causes harm. I think this is a fair relationship.

Now the question of socialism or capitalism is not on the agenda in Hungarian politics, there are established relationships. Today, the main question is whether Hungary will survive the changing gender relations. Can we survive the war? If there is a war, will Central Europe, including Hungary, survive? What about our culture? How can we act against the curses of liberalism? The conservative side should also realize that the main enemy today is not the Labor Party, but liberalism. And liberalism is our enemy too. We must act against this in order to protect the nation, our children, and our families. Can serving the Hungarian interest be the common denominator?

Gyula Thürmer: We don’t have to officially cooperate with the right wing. You have to accept each other, you have to be in dialogue, you have to negotiate, you have to tolerate each other’s existence, and it helps that everyone can protect the interests of the nation in their own area. There is already a good example of this. You cooperated with the then mayor János Lázár in the defense of the hospital in Hódmezővásárhely.

Gyula Thurmer:Yes, there is a historical example. When the Medgyessy government wanted to privatize hospitals in 2004-2005, we, the Labor Party, launched a referendum initiative. We said don’t sell the hospitals. It was obvious that we alone could not collect so many signatures in a short time, then the civil circles and Fidesz officially and publicly declared that you should go and sign. Not because it’s a Labor thing, but because it’s a good idea. I have known János Lázár since then, we defended the hospital in Vásárhely together. As he alluded to, when he was mayor, there was a quote from Solzhenitsyn displayed on the door of the mayor’s office, which went something like this: Communists are the most guilty people in the world. Despite this, I met János Lázár countless times. Because it’s okay, that’s his belief, I think differently too, but that’s not the point. It’s about the hospital, it’s about the villages, it’s about the people who live there. And in that – yes – you can think together and even work together.